Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Menifee Boardwalk Project
March 2026
CITY OF MENIFEE
Community Development Department
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, California 92586
Lead Agency: Consultant to Lead Agency:
633 W. 5th Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
EXHIBIT "A"
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 i Table of Contents SECTION PAGE 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance................................................. 1 1.2 Public Review Process .......................................................................................... 2 2 Project Details .................................................................................................................. 3 3 Initial Study Checklist...................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ....................................................................... 20 3.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 24 3.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 41 3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 52 3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................... 57 3.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 63 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................ 74 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................... 92 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................... 100 3.11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 114 3.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................... 120 3.13 Noise ............................................................................................................... 122 3.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................... 137 3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................. 140 3.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................... 146 3.17 Transportation ................................................................................................. 148 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 156 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................ 159 3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................ 173 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................. 176 APPENDICES A Sign Program B CalEEMod Modeling Outputs C Biological Assessment D Cultural Report E Energy Worksheet F Geotechnical Report G Water Quality Management Plan H Hydrology Report I Noise Measurement Data Sheet J VMT Assessment K Will Serve Letters
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 ii FIGURES 2-1 Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................... 9 2-2 Project Site Aerial ........................................................................................................... 10 2-3 Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 11 2-4 Project Photometric Study .............................................................................................. 12 3.4-1 Plant Communities and Land Cover ................................................................................ 51 3.13-1 Noise Measurement Locations ..................................................................................... 136 3.15-1 Project Fire Plan ........................................................................................................... 145 3.19-1 Project Utility Plan ........................................................................................................ 172 TABLES 3.3-1 Construction-Related Pollutant Emissions....................................................................... 31 3.3-2 Operational Pollutant Emission....................................................................................... 33 3.3-4 Localized Construction Emissions ................................................................................... 35 3.3-5 Local Operational Emissions ........................................................................................... 36 3.4-1 List of Plants Observed in the Study Area ........................................................................ 42 3.4-2 Summary of Plant Communities on the Study Area and Project Site ............................... 43 3.4-3 Summary of Wildlife Observed in the Study Area ............................................................ 44 3.8-1 Project-Related GHG Emissions ...................................................................................... 82 3.8-2 Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures ............................... 84 3.10-1 Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures ................................................. 103 3.11-1 Project Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies ............................................. 115 3.13-1 Existing Ambient Noise Levels....................................................................................... 125 3.13-2 Vibration Source Levels for Construction ...................................................................... 126 3.13-3 City of Menifee Stationary Noise Standards .................................................................. 127 3.13-4 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................... 129 3.14-1 SCAG Data for City of Menifee ...................................................................................... 137 3.17-1 Project Consistency with General Plan Circulation Element .......................................... 150 3.19-1 Solid Waste Infrastructure Capacities ........................................................................... 166 3.19-2 Project Percentage of Solid Waste Infrastructure Capacities ......................................... 168 Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 1 1 Introduction 1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to proposed projects initiated by, funded by, or requiring discretionary approvals from state or local government agencies. An application for the proposed Menifee Boardwalk Project (the “Project”) has been submitted to the City of Menifee for discretionary review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 states that a “Lead Agency” is “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Therefore, the City of Menifee (the “City”) is the lead agency responsible for compliance with CEQA for the proposed Project. The City, as Lead Agency, has determined that proposed Project constitutes a project as defined by CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.) and the preparation of an Initial Study is required. Based on the nature and scope of the proposed Project and the evaluation contained in the IS Environmental Checklist (contained herein), the City, as the lead agency, concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the proper level of environmental documentation for the proposed Project. This Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) evaluates potential environmental effects resulting from construction, implementation, and operation of the proposed Project. Based on the analysis provided within this IS/MND, the City has concluded that impacts caused by the proposed Project are either less than significant or significant but able to be reduced to less-than-significant levels with incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures included herein. This conclusion is supported by CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, which states that an MND can be prepared when “(a) the initial study shows that there is not substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant, before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and (2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.” This IS/MND is intended as an informational document and is ultimately required to be adopted by the decision makers prior to Project approval by the City. The City will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(d), which requires that a lead or responsible agency adopt a mitigation monitoring plan when approving or carrying out a project when an MND identifies measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be submitted with the Final IS/MND.
Introduction
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 2
1.2 Public Review Process The IS/MND for the proposed Project will be released for a 20-day public review period from Wednesday, March 11, 2026 through Monday, March 30, 2026. During this public review period, written comments on the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND can be submitted by all interested public agencies, organizations, community groups, and individuals to the following contact by mail or email no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 30, 2026. It is anticipated that a public hearing will occur no earlier than Wednesday, April 8, 2026. The Draft IS/MND will be available for public review during the comment period at the following locations: • Online at: https://www.cityofmenifee.us/325/Environmental-Notices-Documents • City of Menifee City Hall Public Counter 29844 Haun Road Menifee, California 92586 The Final IS/MND will include a copy of each comment letter provided during the public review period of the IS/MND, followed by a formal response. The City’s responses to comments on the IS/MND represent a good-faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), decision makers will consider the proposed IS/MND together with the comments received during the public review process.
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 3 2 Project Details The following discussion of potential environmental effects was completed in accordance with Section 15063(d)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (2023) to determine if the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment. 1. Project title: Menifee Boardwalk Project 2. Lead Agency name and address: City of Menifee 29844 Haun Road Menifee, California 92586 3. Contact person and phone number: Desiree McGriff, Associate Planner (951) 723-3770; [email protected] 4. Project sponsor’s name and address: Menifee Boardwalk LLC Matthew Arfa 4040 Macarthur Boulevard, Suite 309 Newport Beach, CA 92660 5. Project Location: The Project is located south of Newport Road and west of Menifee Road in the City of Menifee. The 262,242-square-foot (6.02-acre) Project Site consists of one parcel and one lot (Parcel B, Lot 2 of Parcel Map No. 38129 as per Map Book 254, Pages 77—80) associated with assessor parcel number (APN) 364-030-016 (the “Project Site”). As shown in Figure 2-1, Regional Location Map (provided at the end of Section 2), regional access to the Project Site is provided by Interstate 215 (I-215) via the Newport Road offramps located approximately 0.8-mile to the west, with local access provided via Newport Road. 6. General Plan designation: Specific Plan (SP)—Menifee Village 7. Zoning: Menifee Village Specific Plan Zone Planning Area (PA) 2-11: Neighborhood Commercial Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 4
8. Surrounding land uses and setting: The City is located in the western portion of Riverside County, approximately 30 miles southeast of the City of Riverside. The Project Site and the surrounding vicinity are located within the Menifee Village Specific Plan (MVSP) Zone in the central-eastern portion of the City. The primary land uses within the MVSP are single-family residences and supporting development, including commercial, open space/park/recreation, and institutional land uses. Specific land uses in the surrounding vicinity include: North: parcels located across Newport Road developed with one- and two-story single-family residences and the Menifee Lakes Country Club 18-hole golf course. East: commercial development, including retail and restaurant land uses. South: parcels developed with one- and two-story single-family residences and Callie Kirkpatrick Elementary School. West: parcels developed with one- and two-story single-family residences. As shown in Figure 2-2, Project Site Aerial (provided at the end of Section 2), the Project Site is vacant and undeveloped. The Site is generally flat with elevations ranging from 1,433 to 1,437 feet above mean seal level. Surface drainage sheet flows from south to north toward Newport Road. The subsurface materials at the Site consist of topsoil underlain by dense, stiff, Quaternary alluvial deposits to depths of at least 30 feet below the ground surface. Vegetation on the Site consists of moderate amounts of annual weeds/grasses. 9. Description of Project: The Project is the construction and operation of a 38,560-square-foot commercial development and associated surface parking. The Project includes a request for approval of a Major Plot Plan (No. PLN24-0118), a Tentative Map (No. 39000), minor conditional use permit (No. PLN25-0112), and a Sign Program (No. PLN24-0148). Additionally, the Project would commercially subdivide the 6.01-acre Site into five lots: Parcel 1 would be 0.83-acre; Parcel 2 would be 1.59 acres; Parcel 3 would be 0.47-acre; Parcel 4 would be 1.52 acres; and Parcel 5 would be 1.62 acres. As shown on Figure 2-3, Site Plan (provided at the end of Section 2), the Project’s proposed commercial land uses would be contained within five buildings as detailed below: • Building 1 would be a multi-tenant building totaling 6,000 square feet. The Building 1 area would provide space for five restaurant tenants, with each unit occupying approximately 1,200 square feet of space, and two outdoor patios. Building 1 would have a maximum height of 28 feet, 10 inches. • Building 2 would be a multi-tenant building totaling 10,850 square feet. The Building 2 area would provide space for seven restaurant and retail tenants, with units ranging in size from 1,080 square feet to 2,000 square feet, with three outdoor patios. Building 2 would have a maximum height of 27 feet, 6 inches.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 5 • Building 3 would be a single-tenant building totaling 1,000 square feet. The Building 3 area would provide space for one fast-food restaurant, including automobile drive-through lane, and one outdoor patio. Building 3 would have a maximum height of 23 feet. • Building 4 would be a multi-tenant building totaling 10,800 square feet. The Building 4 area would provide space for five restaurant, retail, and medical office tenants, with units ranging from 1,445 square feet to 3,600 square feet, and two outdoor patios. Building 4 would have a maximum height of 30 feet. • Building 5 would be a single-tenant building totaling 10,000 square feet. The Building 5 area would provide space for one childcare tenant and would include a 12,500 outdoor play yard. Building 5 would have a maximum height of 26 feet. Architectural Design The Project’s buildings would feature a modern architectural style characterized by clean lines, varied rooflines, and a balanced combination of materials and textures to create visual interest consistent with the architectural style components of the Menifee Village Specific Plan. Building facades would incorporate a mix of stucco finishes and horizontal siding accents with natural tones, complemented by stone veneer cladding at key entry points. Storefront systems would utilize large windows with aluminum framing to maximize natural light within tenant spaces and provide transparency to enhance visual connectivity between the interior and exterior. Design features such as projected metal canopies, accent trim, and enhanced corner treatments would be utilized to emphasize entry locations and add to the overall architectural character. The roof design includes a combination of flat and low-pitched parapet roofs with projecting canopies to provide shade and articulation along tenant entrances. Variations in wall planes, material transitions, and parapet heights are proposed to enhance depth and break up building massing in order to contribute to a more dynamic and pedestrian-friendly street presence. All roof-mounted mechanical equipment would be screened from the ground elevation view by architectural elements such as parapets. Landscaping The Project would provide a total of 37,954 square feet (0.87-acre) of onsite landscaped area (approximately 25 percent of the Project Site area) along the Site perimeter and throughout the parking areas, and 9,465 square feet of total offsite/public right-of-way landscaped area. Project landscaping would include a total of 145 trees, including 56 perimeter trees, 70 parking lot trees, and 19 street trees. Stormwater The Project would construct an underground detention basin for stormwater runoff. Surface runoff would sheet flow through concrete gutters to a network of grated inlets, which would drain to a proposed underground detention basin to store and treat runoff prior to discharge to an existing 60-inch public storm drain line in Newport Road. To provide runoff treatment, a Modular Wetland System (MWS) unit would be connected immediately downstream of the underground Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 6 detention basin. The Project’s stormwater detention and treatment system would be sized to accommodate the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm volumes. Access and Parking Primary vehicular access to the Site would be provided via one right-turn in/right-turn out only, unsignalized driveway along Newport Road (Project Driveway No. 1) with secondary access via one existing shared right-turn in/right-turn out only, unsignalized driveway along Menifee Road (Project Driveway No. 2) and reciprocal access easement along the southern boundary of the adjacent parcel to the east.1 Pedestrian access would be provided adjacent to the Site via existing sidewalks along the south side of Newport Road and the west side of Menifee Road. Bicycle access would be provided via the existing bike land along the west side of Menifee Road and along adjacent roadways and sidewalks accordingly. The Project would provide a total of 278 vehicle parking spaces, including 18 ADA van spaces. Vehicular parking spaces would also provide raceways for charging of electric vehicles in 55 spaces, 12 of which would be installed with charging stations, including four charging stations designated for ADA van spaces. The Project would also provide 16 bicycle racks and five bicycle lockers. Sign Program and Lighting The Project includes the Menifee Boardwalk Sign Program (Sign Program), which was designed to meet the intent of the Menifee Village Specific Plan. The Project’s Sign Program establishes comprehensive standards for property signage, ensuring consistent design, tenant identification, and effective wayfinding for both pedestrians and vehicles accessing amenities within the Project. Specifications within the Sign Program allow for the inclusion of tenant signage, building address signage, and regulatory signage. The Project also proposes the installation of a freestanding monument sign at the entrance to the Project Site from Newport Road. Prohibited signs include outdoor advertising (e.g., sandwich boards, flags, inflatables, etc.); temporary wall signs; window decorations; paper/cardboard/stickers/decals placed at the storefronts; signs which appear similar to traffic signs or signals; signs displaying indecent or unlawful activities; signs blocking ingress/egress or attached to items in the common area (e.g., standpipes, posts, etc.); advertising affixed to vehicles; roof signs/signs that project above the roofline; and any banner, pre-manufactured franchise signs, freestanding signs, or moving/flashing signs except as otherwise provided within the Sign Program. All signs visible through the windows of the premises would be subject to City codes, including painted, hanging or neon signs. The Sign Program requires that all signage proposed and allowed under the Sign Program to be consistent with the City of Menifee Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 9.220 Sign Regulations, and their installation to comply with all applicable City building and electrical codes. The Project’s Sign Program is included in its entirety as Appendix A to this IS/MND. 1 Reciprocal Access Easements, Parcel Map No. 36998, Easement Note 5: Grant of Easement Maintenance Agreement for Access recorded December 21, 2015 as instrument No. 2015-0550367 of official records, January 2016 and Parcel Map 38129 dated December 2021, Easement Notes A and B.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 7 Building lighting would be limited to points of ingress/egress, security lighting, accent lighting, and lighting for signage. Parking lot lighting would be typical of commercial development. Specifically, the Project would install pole-mounted security lights throughout the proposed parking areas, wall-mounted, decorative sconce lights along the perimeter of the proposed building, and internally-illuminated tenant and monument directional signage. The Project’s lighting plan is shown in Figure 2-4, Project Photometric Study (provided at the end of Section 2). Anticipated Construction Schedule Following City approvals and issuance of building and grading permits, it would take approximately 12-14 months for development of the Site, including clearing and grading, construction of proposed structures, and building and site finishing. Project demolition is anticipated to begin no sooner than 1st quarter 2026 and completion of construction and architectural coatings/finishing is expected for 1st quarter of 2027. The applicant estimates 2,915 cubic yards of cut, 3,010 cubic yards of fill, and 95 cubic yards of soil import; no disposal of soil requiring hauling would be required. All staging of construction equipment would occur onsite. Project Approvals The City of Menifee is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and approving the IS/MND. The City will consider the following discretionary approvals for the Menifee Boardwalk Project: • Major Plot Plan (No. PLN24-0118); • Tentative Map (No. 39000 – PLN24-0147); and • Sign Program (No. PLN24-0148). Additional permits may be required upon review of construction documents. Other permits required for the Project may include, but are not limited to, the following: encroachment permits for driveways, sidewalks, and utilities; security and parking area lighting; building permits; grading permits; tenant improvement permits; and permits for new utility connections. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None; approvals are only required from the City of Menifee 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.: On May 7, 2025, the City sent letters to Native American contacts in the area to request information on potential cultural resources in the Project Site vicinity that may be impacted by activities associated with the Project’s development. No significant tribal cultural resources were identified during consultation and impacts to potentially unknown tribal cultural resources were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to Section 3.5, Cultural Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 8 Resources, and Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND for the full details of tribal outreach and consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1.
Project Site
Scale (Miles)
0 0.50.25
N
Project Site
N NOT TO SCALE
Regional Location Map
Source: Google Maps, 2025
Figure 2-1
N
Project Site
Project Site Aerial
Source: Google Earth, 2025
Figure 2-2
N
Project Site Plan
Source: Bickel Group Architecture, 2025
Figure 2-3
N
Project Photometric Study
Source: Performance Lighting Systems, 2025
Figure 2-4
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 13 3 Initial Study Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services Agriculture & Forestry Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Transportation Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Energy Noise Wildfire Geology / Soils Population / Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions on the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. (951) 723-3741 RYAN FOWLER, PLANNING MANAGER PHONE NUMBER
SIGNATURE DATE
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less that significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross referenced). 5) Earlier analysis must be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated 7) Supporting Information Sources: A sources list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whichever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 15
3.1 Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is a view from a public place, such as a roadway or designated scenic viewing spot, that is expansive and considered important to the community. It can be obtained from an elevated position (such as from the top of a hillside) or it can be seen from a roadway with a longer-range view of the landscape. An adverse effect would occur if a proposed project would block or otherwise damage the scenic vista upon implementation. According to the General Plan Community Design Element, the City’s image is largely determined by the quality of its long, straight corridors, which give motorists views of commercial areas, neighborhoods, the mountains, and adjoining hillside development. Newport Road is identified as Enhanced Landscape Corridors, which should receive special landscaping treatment to create a unique sense of identity and provide visual interest.2 As such, the Project is subject to applicable General Plan Policies CD-4.1 through CD-4.3 for Enhanced Landscape Corridors, which ensure unification of streetscape elements such as coordinated streetlights, landscaping, and signage; 2 City of Menifee, General Plan, Community Design Element, 2013, pages 1-2.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 16 allow for safer walkability and bicycling; and require special considerations at intersections and crosswalks. The planning standards established for the PA 2-11: Neighborhood Commercial Zone by the Menifee Village Specific Plan require commercial developments to include heavy landscaping and buffering along major streets; unifying elements such as paving patterns, entry features, signage, landscaping, and an architectural theme to visually tie commercial centers together and provide a unique appearance apart from other commercial centers; and the use of plant materials to screen parking areas and accessory structures from views of passing motorists and soften building edges and humanize commercial developments. The Project’s design, including its compliance with applicable requirements and standards for landscape and unifying elements established for the Site by the Menifee Village Specific Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City during the development review process prior to the issuance of a building permit. The City would have the ability to add conditions related to aesthetics to ensure compatibility with policies established for Newport Road as an Enhanced Landscape Corridor. As a result, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the City. One highway, I-215, which runs north/south through the City approximately 0.8-mile west of the Project Site, has been identified as eligible for designation as a Riverside County scenic highway.3 However, due to distance and intervening development/landscaping, the Project Site is not visible from I-215 in the vicinity of the Site and the Project’s one-story buildings would not be distinguishable from the surrounding development from a distance. In addition, the Project Site does not contain scenic resources and would be required by the design guidelines established for the Menifee Village Specific Plan to screen views of parking areas and accessory structures from passing motorists. Accordingly, the Project would not have the potential to damage scenic resources within a scenic highway, including a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 3 City of Menifee, General Plan, Community Design Element, 2013, Exhibit C-8: Scenic Highways.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 17 c) Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact. For purposes of CEQA, an “urbanized area” is defined by PRC Section 21071 as an incorporated city with a population of at least 100,000 persons (or a population of at least 100,000 persons when combined with not more than two contiguous incorporated cities) or an unincorporated area completely surrounded by incorporated cities and with a total population of more than 100,000 persons. The Project Site is located in the City of Menifee, which has a population of approximately 107,120 in 2022.4 Therefore, the following discussion focuses on whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project would develop commercial land uses consistent with the allowed uses established for the underlying land use designation and zoning, including the Menifee Village Specific Plan. The Project’s design, including all features and related to aesthetics such as landscaping, architectural elements, height, massing, materials, color palette, screening, paving elements, signage, and lighting are subject to the design guidelines established for the PA 2-11: Neighborhood Commercial Zone by the Menifee Village Specific Plan. The Project would include 10-foot landscape buffers between the Project and the residential development adjacent to the west as well as between the Project and the Callie Kirkpatrick Elementary School adjacent to the south. All roof-mounted equipment would be screened from view from the ground and accessory features such as trash collection bins would be enclosed within structures comprised of materials and colors compatible with the proposed commercial buildings. The proposed buildings would be articulated and finished with accents of varying material types and colors to enhance visual interest. Project lighting has been designed to match the decorative design of nearby commercial development to create a unifying appearance for the area. The Project’s design, including its compliance with applicable zooming requirements and standards would be reviewed and approved by the City during the development review process prior to the issuance of a building permit. The City would have the ability to add conditions related to aesthetics to ensure compatibility with policies established for the Site. As a result, the Project would not conflict with regulations governing the scenic quality of the City and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 4 California Department of Finance, source for SCAG’s 2023 Local Profiles Report Dataset, https://hub.scag.ca.gov/search?tags=local%2520profile.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 18 d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. The Project has prepared a photometric study (previously shown in Figure 2-4 in Section 2, Project Details) showing the location, quantity, type, and luminance of all fixtures proposed for the Project Site. According to the photometric plan, the Project would install pole-mounted security lights throughout the proposed parking areas and decorative wall-mounted sconces on building exteriors. All lighting consists of down-cast light-emitting diode (LED) fixtures with capabilities for precise determination of illuminated area. All exterior lighting associated with the Project would be required to comply with the requirements and prohibitions of Chapter 6.01 of the MMC to minimize light pollution into the night sky and onto adjacent properties. Accordingly, parking lot and exterior lights would be downward facing, shielded, and limited in brightness to prevent spillover onto adjacent properties while providing sufficient illumination to comply with safety requirements. As shown in the Project’s Photometric Study, there would be no light spillover beyond the boundaries of the Site. In addition, the landscape perimeter of the Project Site and surrounding properties would reduce light from vehicle headlights. Project building materials include concrete, metal, and glass. All metal components, including canopies and flashing, and glass would be of non-reflective finishes. In addition, as with sources of light, perimeter landscaping would shield any glare originating from the Project Site from offsite viewers. Based on the above, the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Visual Character/Quality The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to aesthetics and visual resources is limited to the Project viewshed, which primarily consists of immediately surrounding areas. Because the Project is not highly visible from public viewpoints or scenic vistas, would be constructed according to local policies regulating scenic quality, and is proposed for an area that currently contains similar development, it would not result in significant impacts to the visual environment. Although the proposed development intensity on the Project Site would be greater than existing conditions, the Project would be compatible in design and scale with the adjacent commercial land use. Proposed building design would be in conformance with the City’s standards for development on commercially-zoned sites. Similarly, cumulative projects would be required to comply with the MMC, General Plan, and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project and cumulative projects would be subject to the City’s design review guidelines, which are intended to ensure Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 19 that the scenic resources and identity of Menifee are retained and enhanced. Therefore, with adherence to design review guidelines and regulations governing scenic quality, the Project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact to aesthetics or scenic resources. Therefore, the proposed Project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts to aesthetics and visual resources. Light/Glare Build-out of cumulative development would contribute to the overall level of light and glare in the Project area. However, as with the Project, cumulative projects are distributed throughout an urbanized area with a high degree of existing nighttime illumination and additional glow from these projects is anticipated in the Menifee General Plan. Furthermore, all cumulative projects would be subject to the same requirements as the Project where exterior lighting and glare effects are possible, and this would be analyzed in a site-specific, separate environmental analysis for each project to determine impacts to light and glare and to mitigate them if they arise. As such, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to light and glare would be cumulatively less than significant.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 20
3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 21 a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Project Site is designated Specific Plan (SP)—Menifee Village in the City’s General Plan5 and zoned M-1 (Industrial Park Zone) and Menifee Village Specific Plan Zone Planning Area (PA) 2-11: Neighborhood Commercial in the MMC.6 According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the Project Site is designated as Urban and Built-Up land, and the Site is not located on designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.7 Therefore, the Project would not convert farmland to nonagricultural uses, and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Within the City, agricultural uses are a permitted use within Agricultural (AG), Rural Mountainous (RM), and other Rural Residential zones of various lot size.8 Agricultural use is not an identified allowed use for the Site’s Menifee Village Specific Plan Zone Planning Area (PA) 2-11: Neighborhood Commercial zoning.9 The Menifee Village Specific Plan plans for the Site to contain neighborhood commercial uses such as convenience markets, supermarkets, pharmacies, and other retail stores.10 As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 5 City of Menifee, General Plan, Land Use Element, Exhibit LU-2: Land Use Map. 6 City of Menifee, Municipal Code, Title 9, December 18, 2019. 7 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed September 2025. 8 City of Menifee, Municipal Code, Title 9, December 18, 2019, Chapter 9.125. 9 City of Menifee, Municipal Code, Title 9, December 18, 2019, Table 9.135.030-1 Commercial and Industrial Zones—Allowed Uses and Approval Requirements. 10 City of Menifee, Menifee Village Specific Plan, January 11, 2005, page 130.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 22 c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project would construct and operate a neighborhood-serving commercial development on a site that is zoned for neighborhood commercial uses and is surrounded by sites zoned for and developed with residential neighborhoods and other neighborhood-serving public services and commercial uses. Neither the Project Site nor the surrounding area are zoned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause the rezoning of such land uses and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project Site is currently undeveloped and contains only moderate amounts of annual weeds/grasses. No forest lands exist within the Project Site or vicinity; therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As detailed in response to Checklist Questions 3.2(a) through 3.2(d), the Project would construct and operate a neighborhood commercial development consistent with the underlying land use and zoning designations of the Project Site. No Farmland or forest land exists on the Project Site or within the surrounding vicinity. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly convert Farmland to non-agricultural use or convert forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The scope for cumulative impacts to agricultural resources is limited to the Project Site and immediately adjacent areas. The Site and surrounding properties are designated and zoned for residential and Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 23 commercial land uses. As indicated by their inclusion within the boundaries of the Menifee Village Specific Plan, the Project Site and adjacent areas are planned for continual residential and commercial uses. No agricultural resources or forest lands exist within the Project Site or surrounding properties. As such, the proposed Project would not result in loss of agricultural resources or forest land or conversion of agricultural and forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. No impacts to agricultural resources have been identified through the analysis; therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 24
3.3 Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? The following analysis of impacts to air quality that could potentially occur as a result of construction or operation of the Project is primarily based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) modeling results for the Project’s construction and operational activities. The results of the CalEEMod emissions modeling are attached to this IS/MND as Appendix B. The Project is located within the City of Menifee in the portion of Riverside County that lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The Project area is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB is a 6,600-square-mile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, and all of Orange County. Air Quality Standards and Attainment In May 2022, the SCAQMD completed the 2022 Draft AQMP. The 2022 Draft AQMP is focused on attaining the 2015 8-hour ozone standard (70 parts per billion [ppb]) for the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. The Draft 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emission technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOx technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 25 climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other CAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The 2022 AQMP was adopted December 2, 2022, by the SCAQMD Governing Board. The 2022 AQMP was approved and adopted by CARB on January 26, 2023. The 2022 AQMP strategy includes the following:11 • Wide adoption of zero emissions technologies anywhere available; • Low NOx technologies where zero emissions aren’t feasible; • Federal Action; • Zero emissions technologies for residential and industrial sources such as water and space heaters in buildings and homes regionwide; and • Incentive funding in environmental justice areas. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a project and applicable General Plans and Regional Plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed Project includes the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the Project with the AQMP. The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that a project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2022 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, 2022 AQMP Infographic, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2022-aqmp-infographic, accessed October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 26 Both of these criteria are evaluated in below. Criteria 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this section, short-term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. This section also found that, long-term operations will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion. Criteria 2 – Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of a project against the assumptions in the AQMP. The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for a project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) prepared by SCAG includes chapters on: the challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for our future, and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For the Project, the City of Menifee General Plan Vision 2030 defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The Project’s General Plan Land Use Designation is Specific Plan (SP)—Menifee Village. The Project Site is zoned MVSP Zone PA 2-11: Neighborhood Commercial and is subject to the land use/development and planning standards established in the Menifee Village Specific Plan, which relies on County of Riverside Ordinance No. 348 as implemented by MMC Section 9.155.020. Permitted uses under the MVSP Zone PA 2-11 are established in the County of Riverside Ordinance No. 348, Section 17.27. As established therein, commercial, health service facilities, and child day care center land uses are permitted uses at the Project Site. Therefore, the Project’s proposed commercial land uses, which include retail, restaurant, medical office, and day care tenants would be consistent with the permitted land uses for the Site. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the City’s existing land use and zoning designations. The Project is projected to generate approximately 87 new jobs.12 This direct increase in employment at the Project Site would not be a substantial increase in the City, representing 0.5 percent of the existing (2019) employment and 0.6 percent of the projected employment growth over the planning period. See Section 3.14, Population and Housing, for more details. The Project 12 Calculated as follows: 38,560 square-foot commercial development / 447 employees per square foot of retail/service space = 86.3 employees rounded up to 87. Source: Menifee Union School District, 2023/2024 Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, March 12, 2024, page 9.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 27 is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP under the second criterion. Based on the above, the Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, the associated impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. Criteria Pollutants The criteria pollutants consist of: ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls these pollutants “criteria” air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-based criteria for setting permissible levels. The following provides descriptions of each of the criteria pollutants. Nitrogen Dioxides Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases which contain nitrogen and oxygen. While most NOx are colorless and odorless, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. NOx form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuel. NOx react with other pollutants to form, ground-level ozone, nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which cause respiratory problems. NOx and the pollutants formed from NOx can be transported over long distances, following the patterns of prevailing winds. Therefore, controlling NOx is often most effective if done from a regional perspective, rather than focusing on the nearest sources.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 28 Ozone Ozone (O3) is not usually emitted directly into the air but at ground-level is created by a chemical reaction between NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form with the greatest concentrations usually occurring downwind from urban areas. Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant. Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Because NOx and VOC are ozone precursors, the health effects associated with ozone are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels of NOx and VOC emissions. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are indoor sources of CO. The highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground beneath a layer of warm air. CO is described as having only a local influence because it dissipates quickly. Since CO concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO concentrations generally occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high traffic volumes and traffic congestion, active parking lots, and in automobile tunnels. Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and congested intersections are particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations. CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and thus reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. The health threat from lower levels of CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease such as angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person’s ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other cardiovascular effects. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people. People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur Oxide (SOx) gases (including sulfur dioxide [SO2]) are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil is burned, and from the refining of gasoline. SOx gases dissolve easily in water Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 29 vapor to form acid and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and the environment. Lead Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions to the air. High levels of lead in the air are typically only found near lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Exposure of fetuses, infants, and children to low levels of lead can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure. Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM) is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Particulate matter is made up of a number of components including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) have been designated as a subset of PM10 due to their increased negative health impacts and its ability to remain suspended in the air longer and travel further. Reactive Organic Gases Although not a criteria pollutant, reactive organic gases (ROGs), or VOCs, are defined as any compound of carbon—excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate—that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Although there are slight differences in the definition of ROGs and VOCs, the two terms are often used interchangeably. Indoor sources of VOCs include paints, solvents, aerosol sprays, cleansers, tobacco smoke, etc. Outdoor sources of VOCs are from combustion and fuel evaporation. A reduction in VOC emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone. VOCs are transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility. Construction Emissions Assumptions for the phasing, duration, and required equipment for the construction of the Project were obtained from the Project Applicant. The construction activities for the Project are anticipated to include: site preparation and grading of approximately 6 acres; construction of Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 30 28,650 square-feet of retail plaza, 10,000 square-feet of day care center; paving of a parking lot with 278 automobile parking spaces; and application of architectural coatings. The Project would provide approximately 37,954 square-feet of landscaping. Grading is to include approximately 95 cubic yards of import. The Project is anticipated to start construction no sooner than the 1st quarter of 2026 and be complete by 1st quarter 2027. The Project is anticipated to be operational in 2027. See Appendix B to this IS/MND for more details. Methodology The following provides a discussion of the methodology used to calculate regional construction air emissions and an analysis of the Project’s short-term construction emissions for the criteria pollutants. The construction-related regional air quality impacts have been analyzed for both criteria pollutants and GHGs. Emissions are estimated using the CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.30) software, which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod was developed in collaboration with the air districts of California. Regional data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) have been provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions. The model is considered to be an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality and GHG impacts from land use projects throughout California and is recommended by the SCAQMD.13 Daily regional emissions during construction are forecasted by assuming a conservative estimate of construction activities (i.e., assuming all construction occurs at the earliest feasible date) and applying the mobile source and fugitive dust emissions factors. The input values used in this analysis were adjusted to be project-specific for the construction schedule and the equipment used was based on CalEEMod defaults. The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2021 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for the southwestern portion of Riverside County for construction-related employee vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2017 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. EMFAC2021 and OFFROAD2017 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour. Daily truck trips and CalEEMod default trip length data were used to assess roadway emissions from vehicle exhaust. The maximum daily emissions are estimated values for the worst-case day and do not represent the emissions that would occur for every day of project construction. The maximum daily emissions are compared to the SCAQMD daily regional numeric indicators. 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model, http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 31 Detailed construction equipment lists, construction scheduling, and emission calculations are provided in Appendix B to this IS/MND. The Project would be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph), sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. SCAQMD’s Rule 403 minimum requirements require that the application of the best available dust control measures is used for all grading operations and include the application of water or other soil stabilizers in sufficient quantity to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Compliance with Rule 403 would require the use of water trucks during all phases where earth moving operations would occur. Compliance with Rule 403 has been included in the CalEEMod modeling for the Project. Per SCAQMD Rule 1113 as amended on June 3, 2011, the Project’s architectural coatings would be limited to an average of 50 grams per liter or less of VOCs for building coatings and 100 grams per liter or less of VOCs for traffic coatings. Compliance with Rule 1113 has been included in the CalEEMod modeling for the Project The phases of the construction activities which have been analyzed below for the Project are: (1) site preparation, (2) grading, (3) building construction, (4) paving, and (5) application of architectural coatings. The estimated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized below in Table 3.3-1, Construction-Related Pollutant Emissions. Details pertaining to the Project's construction timing and the type of equipment modeled for each construction phase are available in the CalEEMod output in Appendix B to this IS/MND. As shown in Table 3.3-1, none of the Project's emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the Project. Table 3.3-1, Construction-Related Pollutant Emissions Activity Pollutant Emissions (pound/day) Maximum Daily Emissions 2,3 9.23 29.24 29.76 0.05 6.58 3.82 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No 1 Site preparation and grading PM10 and PM2.5 emissions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2 Includes both on-site and off-site emissions. On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. 3 Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coatings phases may overlap. Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30 outputs for the Project (see Appendix B of this IS/MND).
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 32 Operational Emissions CalEEMod was also used to calculate emissions associated with operation of the Project. Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources: • Area Source Emissions • Energy Source Emissions • Mobile Source Emissions Area Source Emissions Architectural Coatings Over a period of time the buildings that are part of the Project would generate emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings as part of Project maintenance. As discussed above, the Project’s CalEEMod emissions modeling assumes compliance with the low-VOC requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Consumer Products Consumer products include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these products contain organic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants. Landscape Maintenance Equipment Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. Energy Source Emissions Energy usage includes emissions from the combustion emissions associated with generation of electricity and natural gas used onsite. No changes were made to the default parameters. Mobile Source Emissions Vehicles Project mobile source air quality impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the Project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 33 vicinity of the Site. The Project’s operational air quality impacts are derived primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. The Project’s background traffic data calculated that the Project would generate 1,527 daily trips, including a 25 percent reduction for pass-by trips. The Project was modeled with a trip generation rate of 40.837696 trips/thousand square-feet (TSF) per day for the retail plaza (with the 25 percent pass-by reduction) and a trip generation rate of 35.7 trips/TSF per weekday (with the 25 percent pass-by reduction) for the day care center. The Saturday and Sunday trip generation rates for the day care center were left as CalEEMod defaults. Fugitive Dust Related to Vehicular Travel Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of tire wear particulates. Operational Emissions Summary The potential operations-related air emissions have been analyzed below for the criteria pollutants and cumulative impacts. The worst-case summer or winter criteria pollutant emissions created from the Project’s long-term operations have been calculated and are shown below in Table 3.3-3, Operational Pollutant Emissions. As shown in Table 3.3-3, emissions from operation of the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD threshold. Table 3.3-3, Operational Pollutant Emissions Activity Pollutant Emissions (pound/day) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 6.88 4.99 43.91 0.12 9.36 2.44 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30 output for the Project (see Appendix B of this IS/MND). The higher of either Summer or Winter is presented in this table. Conclusion Based on the results above, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants during either construction or operation. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 34 c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The local air quality emissions from construction and operation were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold (LST) Look-up Tables and the methodology described in their Localized Significance Threshold Methodology guidance document. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOx, PM2.5, and/or PM10. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from a project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Construction-Related Local Impacts Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. As the Project Site is 6.02 acres, and the largest available acreage to use in the LST Look-Up Tables is five acres,14 the onsite construction emissions for each construction phase were compared to the five-acre thresholds. The emission thresholds were calculated based on the Perris source receptor area (SRA) 24 and a disturbance value of five acres per day. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter thresholds. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the single-family detached residential dwelling units located adjacent to the western and southwestern boundary of the Site; the Callie Kirkpatrick Elementary School located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site; and the single-family detached residential dwelling units located approximately 120 feet north of the Site, north of Newport Road; therefore, the SCAQMD Look-Up Tables for 25 meters was used. Table 3.3-4, Localized Construction Emissions, shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the LST emissions thresholds. As shown in Table 3.3-4, none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the Project. 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Handbook, Localized Significance Thresholds, Table C-1: Thresholds for Construction and Operation with Gradual Conversion of NOX to NO2, https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=8e641d61_2, accessed October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 35 Table 3.3-4, Localized Construction Emissions
Activity Pollutant Emissions (pound/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 29.16 28.81 6.35 3.77 Grading 14.97 17.44 2.49 1.48 Building Construction 9.85 12.97 0.38 0.35 Paving 6.94 9.95 0.30 0.27 Architectural Coating 0.83 1.13 0.02 0.02 SCAQMD Thresholds 270 1,577 13 8 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30 output for the Project (see Appendix B of this IS/MND). Operations-Related Local Impacts Operations-related air emissions from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, onsite usage of natural gas appliances, as well as the operation of vehicles onsite may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. Per SCAQMD staff, the Five-acre Look-Up Table, which is the largest site available, can be used as a conservative screening analysis for onsite operational emissions to determine whether more-detailed dispersion modeling would be necessary. As with construction emissions, operation-related emissions were analyzed based on the Perris Valley SRA 24. The Project would commercially subdivide the 6.02-acre Site into five lots: Parcel 1 would be 0.83-acre; Parcel 2 would be 1.59 acres; Parcel 3 would be 0.47-acre; Parcel 4 would be 1.52 acres; and Parcel 5 would be 1.62 acres. The buildings with drive-thru service, where vehicle idling could occur, are located on Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 (totaling 2.06 acres); however, to be conservative the onsite operational emissions from the entire 6-acre Site were reported, and compared against the thresholds for a five-acre Project Site. Table 3.3-5, Local Operational Emissions, shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes natural gas usage, landscape maintenance equipment, and vehicles operating onsite, as well as the calculated emissions thresholds. Per LST methodology, mobile emissions include only onsite sources which equate to approximately 10 percent of the Project-related new mobile sources.15 As shown in Table 3.3-5, the on-going operations of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD local operational thresholds of significance. Therefore, the on- 15 The project site is approximately 0.15 miles in length at its longest point; therefore, the on-site mobile source emissions represent approximately 1/37th of the shortest CalEEMod default distance of 5.6 miles. Therefore, to be conservative, 1/10th the distance (dividing the mobile source emissions by 10) was used to represent the portion of the overall mobile source emissions that would occur on-site.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 36 going operations of the Project would have a less than significant operations-related impact on local air quality due to onsite emissions. Table 3.3-5, Local Operational Emissions On Site Emissions Source On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pound/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sources 0.01 1.68 0.00 0.00 Energy Usage 0.11 0.09 0.01 0.01 Vehicle Emissions 0.49 4.21 0.93 0.24 Total Emissions 0.51 5.98 0.94 0.25 SCAQMD Thresholds 270 1,577 4 2 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30 output for the Project (see Appendix B of this IS/MND). Health Effects of Toxic Air Contaminants A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure or acute (immediate) and/or chronic (cumulative) non-cancer health effects. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects. Noncarcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced on either short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC. TACs are identified by federal and state agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In the State of California, TACs are identified through a two-step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two-step process of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, was enacted by the legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. Construction Project construction would result in emissions of diesel particulate matter from heavy construction equipment and trucks accessing the Site. Diesel particulate matter is characterized as a TAC by the State of California. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has identified carcinogenic and chronic noncarcinogenic effects from long-term exposure but has not identified health effects due to short-term exposure to diesel exhaust. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with a project. Construction of the proposed Project Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 37 would take place over an approximately 12-14-month period and thus would represent a small fraction of the recommended exposure duration. Due to this relatively short period of exposure and minimal particulate emissions on site, TACs generated during construction would not be expected to result in concentrations causing significant health risks. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by state, federal, and international agencies and was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1986. Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released into the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology,16 serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the Project area. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. Operation Regarding health effects related to criteria pollutant emissions, the applicable significance thresholds are established for regional compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards, which are intended to protect public health from both acute and long-term health impacts, depending on the potential effects of the pollutant. Because regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during operation of the Project would be below the applicable thresholds, it would not contribute to long-term health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, significant adverse acute health impacts as a result of operation of Project operation are not anticipated. Health Impacts of Carbon Monoxide CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with a project’s CO levels to the state and federal CO standards which were presented above. To determine if the 16 Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000, https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/asbestos/ofr_2000-019.pdf, accessed September 3, 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 38 project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards discussed above, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections in the general vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse. The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Basin by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the South Coast Air Basin. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan). As part of the 1992 CO Plan, CO modeling was performed and a hot spot analysis conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The analysis found that even the busiest intersection, with a Level of Service E during the morning peak hour and Level of Service F during the afternoon peak hour and a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, did not have a violation of CO standards. The Project’s background traffic data calculated that the Project would generate a maximum of approximately 1,527 net daily vehicle trips. For the Year 2027 Cumulative Plus Project PM Peak Hour Scenario, the road segment of Newport Road east of Antelope Road would have a daily traffic volume of 80,451 vehicles. The 1992 CO Plan showed that an intersection which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. Therefore, as the road segment with the highest traffic volume falls far short of 100,000 vehicles per day, no CO “hot spot” modeling was performed and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going operations of the Project. Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depend on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying, cause distress among the public, and generate citizen complaints. Construction Emissions Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities associated with the Project include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are of short-term in nature and the odor emissions are expected cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 39 impact related to odors would occur during construction of the Project. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the Project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the Site and therefore would not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Operational Emissions The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis shall determine whether the Project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the California Code of Regulations and Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus would constitute a public nuisance related to air quality. Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste-disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Air pollution from the Project may combine with other cumulative projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future) to violate criteria pollutant standards if the existing background sources cause nonattainment conditions. Air districts manage attainment of the criteria pollutant standards by adopting rules, regulations, and attainment plans, which comprise a multifaceted programmatic approach to such attainment. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air cell will be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic volumes from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of these projects. Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. This applies to TACs as well, as the SCAQMD does not have any cumulative TAC thresholds; therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD TAC threshold criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would add a cumulatively considerable contribution of a federal or state non-attainment pollutant. Project operations would generate emissions of NOx, ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, which would not exceed the SCAQMD regional or local thresholds and would not be expected to result in ground level concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. The Project would not be a source of significant TACs and would not cause significant cancer or non-cancer-related health risks. Since the Project would not introduce any substantial stationary sources of emissions, CO is the benchmark pollutant for assessing Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 40 local area air quality impacts from post-construction motor vehicle operations. As indicated earlier, no violations of the state and federal CO standards are projected to occur for the Project, based on the magnitude of traffic the project is anticipated to create. Therefore, operation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase for non-attainment of criteria pollutants or ozone precursors, or TACs. As a result, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 41
3.4 Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 42 The following analysis of impacts to biological resources that could potentially occur as a result of construction or operation of the Project is based, in part, on the Project’s Biological Resources Assessment (Biological Assessment) prepared for the Project by South Environmental in October 2025, attached to this IS/MND as Appendix C.17 The Biological Assessment includes an assessment of the potential for special-status plants and animals to occur on the Project Site and surrounding 500 feet (study area) based on a literature review and a field site survey and an analysis of the potential for the Project to impact biological resources according to CEQA. The Site is within the Western Riverside County (WRC) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and therefore includes a consistency analysis with the MSHCP requirements. Plants A total of 21 plant species were identified in the study area. Three are native to this region and 18 are non-native due to the disturbed regions throughout the study area. No special-status plant species were found during the survey. A list of the species observed and their California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) on the Site is presented below in Table 3.4-1, List of Plants Observed in the Study Area. Table 3.4-1, List of Plants Observed in the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name On Project Site Native CRPR Menzies fiddleneck Amsinckia menziesii Yes Yes - wild oat Avena fatua Yes No - great brome Bromus diandrus Yes No - compact brome Bromus madritensis Yes No - crimson bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus Yes No - field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Yes No - common tarweed Deinandra fasciculata Yes Yes - redstem stork's bill Erodium cicutarium Yes No - common sunflower Helianthus annuus Yes Yes - telegraphweed Heterotheca grandiflora Yes No - shortpod mustard Hirschfeldia incana Yes No - mouse barley Hordeum murinum Yes No - tumbleweed Kali tragus subsp. tragus Yes No - prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Yes No - southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora No No - cheeseweed Malva parviflora Yes No - bur clover Medicago polymorpha Yes No - Buddhist pine Podocarpus macrophyllus No No - Peruvian peppertree Schinus molle Yes No - African sumac Searsia lancea No No - Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta No No - 17 South Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment, Menifee Boardwalk Project, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 43 Table 3.4-1, List of Plants Observed in the Study Area
Common Name Scientific Name On Project Site Native CRPR CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank Source: South Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment, Menifee Boardwalk Project, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, Table 1: List of Plants Observed in the Study Area, page 10. The Project Site is dominated by non-native grassland with compacted soil, and the study area is dominated by commercial/ residential developments and agricultural activities. As shown in Figure 3.4-1, Plant Communities and Land Cover, presented at the end of this section (Checklist Section 3.4) and Table 3.4-2, Summary of Plant Communities on the Study Area and Project Site, the study area contains one plant community (Non-native Grassland) and one cover type (Developed / Ornamental Landscape). Non-native Grassland plant community occurs on 7.02-acres of the study area including 5.77-acres of the Project Site. This vegetation community is characterized by a dominance of non-native, ruderal grasses and forbs including tumbleweed, wild oat, black mustard, great brome, compact brome, and red brome. This community occurs throughout almost the entire Project Site. Developed/ Ornamental Landscape cover type occurs on 44.01-acres of the study area and 0.55-acres of the Project Site. This cover type contains commercial/ residential developments, paved parking lots, and roadways. The vegetation in these areas is dominated by non-native, ornamental species such as southern magnolia, Buddhist pine, Peruvian peppertree, and Mexican fan palm. This cover type is found within the parking lot on the Project Site and throughout the study area surrounding the Project Site. Table 3.4-2, Summary of Plant Communities on the Study Area and Project Site Plant Community / Cover Type Acres on Study Area Acres on Project Site Acres Impacted by Project Acres of New Fuel Modification Global / State Rank Non-native Grassland 7.02 5.77 5.77 0 -- Developed / Ornamental Landscape 44.01 0.55 0.55 0 -- Total 51.03 6.32 6.32 0 -- CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank Source: South Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment, Menifee Boardwalk Project, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, Table 2: Summary of Plant Communities on the Study Area and Project Site, page 12. Wildlife A total of three wildlife species were observed during the field survey and are listed in Table 3.4-3, Summary of Wildlife Observed in the Study Area, below. No special-status wildlife was observed during the survey, and none are expected to occur due to the disturbed habitat present and surrounding developed areas.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 44 Table 3.4-3, Summary of Wildlife Observed in the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Taxonomic Group Status California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Mammal None House sparrow Passer domesticus Bird None Western fence lizard Sceloporous occidentalis Reptile None CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank Source: South Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment, Menifee Boardwalk Project, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, Table 1: List of Plants Observed in the Study Area, page 10. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Biological Assessment included a general habitat assessment to document existing biological conditions and determine the potential for special status plant and wildlife species to occur within the Project Site. Prior to conducting a field survey, literature reviews and records searches were conducted to determine which special status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the Site. The Project Site is located within the boundaries of the WRC MSHCP and, accordingly, an MSHCP consistency analysis was also conducted. Special Status Plant Species No special-status plant species were found on the Project Site and the Site is highly disturbed and unable to support special-status plants in the future. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on special-status plant species. Special Status Wildlife No special status wildlife species were observed at the Site or in the study area and most special-status wildlife would be absent from the Site due to lack of native habitats. Although no other special-status wildlife has the potential to occur, burrowing owls are typically found in areas of disturbance that are relatively flat with low-lying vegetation and small mammal burrows. The Site is not within a WRC MSHCP burrowing owl survey area, and a habitat assessment of the Site found that the it lacked burrows of the size required for use by burrowing owls and that the vegetation (grasses and forbs) were taller than would be necessary for use by burrowing owls. Although no burrowing owls, potential burrows, or signs of burrowing owls were observed during the survey, the potential for burrows to be there in the future is high. To ensure there are no impacts to burrowing owls and as required by the WRC MSHCP, mitigation measure BIO-1 requires pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid take of burrowing owls or burrowing owl nests. As such, impacts to special status wildlife would be less than significant with mitigation.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 45 Nesting Birds While common birds are not designated as special status species, destruction of their eggs, nests, and nestling is prohibited by federal and state law. The vegetation present on the Project Site provides potential nesting habitat for common resident birds and as described in the setting above, several inactive bird nests noted in the trees and shrubs onsite during the survey conducted as part of the Biological Review. Because of the disturbed nature of the site and the limited areas of natural habitat, only common species are expected to nest at the Project Site. Nesting birds are protected under Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code and under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Construction activities have the potential to harm protected birds either through direct contact with birds or their eggs, or through elevated noise levels in the surrounding area. Construction activities may also negatively affect breeding or reproduction of birds on or adjacent to the Project Site and therefore, the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts to nesting birds and mitigation measure BIO-2 would be required. Mitigation measure BIO-2 requires pre-construction surveys for evidence of nesting birds and the establishment of avoidance buffers should nests be identified. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall perform a preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present onsite, then the Project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Department approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting onsite during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the Lead Agency and/or appropriate agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist. BIO-2 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird and Raptor Survey. If possible, ground disturbing activities and vegetation removal shall be timed to occur between September 1–January 31, which is outside the bird and raptor nesting season. If ground disturbing activities or vegetation removal (including tree trimming) are scheduled between February 1–August 31, which is the bird nesting season, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within 72 hours prior to construction activities. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with prior experience conducting nesting bird surveys for construction projects. The study area shall include the affected area and suitable habitat within a 500-foot buffer, or a buffer size determined by the qualified biologist based on level of proposed disturbance and access. If no active nests are found, no additional measures are Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 46 required. If active nests are found, the biologist shall map the location and document the species and nesting stage. A no-work buffer shall be established around the active nest as determined by the qualified biologist and based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance and the type and duration of the disturbance. No construction activities shall occur within the no-work buffer until the biologist has determined the nest is no longer active. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Project would be constructed on 5.77-acres of disturbed non-native grassland habitat and on 0.55-acre of developed areas. No native habitat or Sensitive Natural Communities occur on the Project Site.18 Habitat for burrowing owl was determined to be absent from the Site due to lack of burrows and tall vegetation and no other sensitive species would occur here because the Site lacks suitable habitat. Because the Project would avoid impacts to native plant communities, habitat for special-status species, and sensitive natural communities, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS and no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. No evidence of state or federally protected waters or wetlands exist or were mapped on or immediately adjacent to the Project Site according to the USFWS’s, National Wetland Inventory’s Wetland Mapper.19 During the reconnaissance survey conducted in preparation of the Biological Assessment, the study area was inspected for the presence of potential jurisdictional features such as wetlands, streams, lakes, and other water features. The survey was conducted by observing the landscape across the study area and looking for the presence of water and topographic depressions that are associated with dense vegetation. Based on the literature review and results of the reconnaissance survey, the Biological Assessment concluded that there are no hydrology features on the study area.20 Therefore, the Project would have no impact to state or federally protected waters or wetlands and no impact would occur. 18 South Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment, Menifee Boardwalk Project, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, page 21. 19 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper, https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/, accessed October 2025. 20 South Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment, Menifee Boardwalk Project, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, page 14.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 47 Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. During the reconnaissance survey, the Project Site and surrounding 500-ft study area were assessed for their potential use as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. The level of disturbance of the site and surrounding areas by way of development including roads, house and commercial structures, fences, and lighting were noted as they pertain to the connectivity of the site to high-quality habitat. The study area was assessed for the presence of a corridor of linkage of habitat that connects the site to adjacent high-quality habitat. Included in this assessment of a corridor were stream areas or those with unique natural feature (e.g., rock outcrops) which wildlife are known to frequently use as habitat linkages. The Project Site is dominated by invasive grasses that undergo routine fuel modification, which is not a wildlife movement area because it lacks cover and native habitat. There are no unique features like waterways, thickets, or rocky areas present. The surrounding study area is also entirely developed with commercial and residential developments that would deter most wildlife. The Site is within the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan for the WRC MSHCP. The closest MSHCP Conserved Public Quasi-Public (PQP) Conserved Land is within Salt Creek Channel approximately 1.15-miles to the west. These spaces could serve as wildlife corridors for special-status wildlife and contain habitat for native wildlife in the region, but this area is separated from the Project Site by dense urban development. Therefore, the Project Site would not be considered a wildlife movement area or corridor. In addition, the Project Site is not within any Area Plan Subunits, Criteria Cells, or Cores and Linkages (i.e., wildlife migration corridors) that are established in the MSHCP for the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan.21 Based on the above, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 21 South Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment, Menifee Boardwalk Project, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, pages 14—15.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 48 e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The Riverside County Code of Ordinances protects native trees on private and public property that are at an elevation of over 5,000 feet and are at least 30 feet and are not less than 12 inches in diameter when measured 4.5 feet above the ground. In addition, the City’s Open Space and Conservation Element discusses protection of different plant communities and native tree species primarily in relation to the MSHCP. The trees on the Project Site are not special-status species or conservation species recognized in the MSHCP (e.g., covered, narrow endemic).22 Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As previously discussed, the Project Site is located within the boundaries of the MSC MSHCP and, therefore, an MSHCP consistency analysis under Section 6.0 of the MSHCP based on the specific attributes of the Site is required. According to the Western Riverside County MSHCP mapper of the Regional Conservation Authority 2025, the Project Site has the following attributes: • The Project is within the Sun City/Menifee Area Plan; • The Project Site is not within an Area Plan Subunit; • The Project Site is not within a Criteria Cell or Cellgroup; • The Project Site is not within an amphibian or mammal survey area; • The Project Site is not within a mammal survey area; • The Project Site is not within a narrow endemic plant survey area; • The Project Site is not within a criteria species survey area; • The Project Site is not within the burrowing owl survey area; • The Project Site is not within a Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly survey area; • The Project Site is not within any Regional Conservation Authority Conserved Lands; • There are no riparian or riverine features on the Project Site; • There are no vernal pools on the Project Site; • There are no riparian birds on the Project Site; • There are no fairy shrimps on the Project Site; • An analysis of the urban/wildlands interface is also required by the MSHCP. 22 South Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment, Menifee Boardwalk Project, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, page 14.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 49 Based on the above, the Project Site is not within any Area Plan Subunits, Criteria Cells/Cellgroups, survey areas, or conserved lands, and no hydrological features or associated species are found on the Site. As such, no consistency analysis with regard to such attributes is required for the Project or the Site. Furthermore, as discussed in response to Checklist Question 3.4(a), as required by mitigation measure BIO-1, the Project would conduct a burrowing owl survey within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid take of burrowing owls or burrowing owl nests. Mitigation measure BIO-1 would ensure that the Project would not impact species or habitats protected by the MSC MSHCP. Pursuant to the attributes listed above, the Project is required to conduct an analysis of the urban/wildlands interface. The entire Project Site consists of non-native ruderal vegetation and is disturbed by fuel modification, and study areas surrounding the Site are developed on all sides with commercial business and residential homes. There are no wildlands or native plant communities on the Site or vicinity, and only developed areas surround the Site, while non-native, disturbed plants occur on the Site. As such, the Project would not interfere with the urban wildlands interface.23 Based on the above, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of Section 6.0 of the MSC MSHCP. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures See mitigation measure BIO-1 under Checklist Question 3.4(a) above. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts assessed are dependent on not only the site itself, but in the surrounding areas, both past and present. As the city continues to develop and build, habitat fragmentation from increased activities continually diminishes biological resources and their respective habitats. Areas that were once home to dense foliage and woodland, are built upon and used for development and infrastructure. The Project Site is situated in an urbanized area of Menifee and is surrounded by residential and commercial development. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped. No riparian habitat, sensitive communities, or wildlife corridors/nurseries exist on the Project Site and the Site does not provide suitable habitat for special status plant or wildlife species. Accordingly, the Project does not have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact to such resources. Although the Project could impact burrowing owls and nesting birds, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts to less than significant. Additionally, the Project would comply with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code to protect nesting birds, the Riverside County Code of 23 South Environmental, Biological Resources Assessment, Menifee Boardwalk Project, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, page 16.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 50 Ordinances and the City’s Open Space and Conservation Element protecting native trees, and the provisions of the MSC MSHCP. Similarly, cumulative projects would be required to comply with the MMC, General Plan, and other regulations governing biological resources, and would implement similar mitigation measures per project-specific environmental review. Through implementation of the mitigation measures and adherence with federal, state, and local regulations, Project impacts during construction at cumulative project locations are expected to be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to sensitive habitats and biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
Plant Communities and Land Cover
Source: South Environmental, 2025
Figure 3.4-1
N
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 52
3.5 Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? The following analysis of the potential cultural resources impacts of the Project is based on the information and conclusions contained within the Phase I Cultural Resource Technical Report (Cultural Report) prepared for the Project by South Environmental in October 2025.24 The Cultural Report was completed in compliance with CEQA, including PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 and includes the results of a California Historical Resources Information Center (CHRIS) records search of the Project Site and a 0.5-mile radius; background research from available sources; a California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search; and an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project Site by a qualified archaeologist. The Cultural Report is attached to this IS/MND as Appendix D. California Historical Resources Information System Records Search On August 20, 2025, South Environmental requested a cultural resources records search of the Project Site plus a 0.5-mile search radius from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), which houses cultural resources records for Riverside County. This search included their collections of mapped prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic built-environment resources, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms (DPR forms), technical reports, archival resources, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources include historical maps of the study area, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Resources Directory list. The SCIC records search results indicate that no previously recorded resources overlap the Project Site. One previously recorded historic-age cultural resource (P-33-029119) was identified within the 0.5-mile 24 South Environmental, Phase I Cultural Resource Technical Report, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 53 records search area. P-33-029119, located approximately 0.2-mile to the northeast, an historical resource identified as two concrete well pump platforms/foundations, has an eligibility code of 6Z: ineligible for the National Register, the California Register, or local designation.25 The SCIC records search also identified a total of 13 previously conducted cultural resource studies within the search area, including one study (RI-01171) which intersects the Project Site and one study (RI-04375) located adjacent to the Site. None of the archaeological or historical resources identified as part of the RI-01171 or RI-04375 studies are located within the Project Site.26 Historical Map and Aerial Photograph Review A review of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs was conducted to better understand the Project Site's history and any past disturbances. The earliest maps from 1901 through 1943 depict major roads in the area including Newport and Menifee Roads, but no details within the Project Site. Closer scale maps from the 1950s indicate the presence of a blue line intermittent stream paralleling the northern side of Newport Road. A 2012 map is the first to depict streets other than Newport Road and Menifee Road, however, there are no structures depicted within the Project Site. A 2015 map marks a school directly southwest of the Project Site as the closest structure to the Site. A 2018 map includes the unnamed lakes north and south of the Project Site amongst the Menifee Lakes residential community. According to aerial photographs, between 1938 and 1961, the Project Site is northeast of a homestead but does not appear to be cultivated. From 1967 to 1985, the Project Site appears to be used for agricultural purposes with Newport Road to the north and Murrieta Road to the east. In 1996, the Menifee Lakes residential community is under development and Newport Road appears to have been widened with a center median. In 2005, cement pads are laid in the southwest corner of Newport and Murrieta Road. In 2016 the retail development immediately east of the Project Site is under construction and is complete by 2018. No changes appear within the Project Site between 2016 and 2022. No developments occur within the Project Site from 1938 to the present. Native American Coordination A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search was requested by South Environmental on August 20, 2025. The NAHC responded to the request on August 26, 2025, and reported positive results. The NAHC also provided a list of Native American tribes to contact for additional information or knowledge they may have regarding the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by the Project. Separately, the City of Menifee conducted government-to-government tribal consultation per AB 52 of 2014, as amended. The Pechanga Band of Indians responded requesting further consultation on the plan stating that the Project Site is within “the Tribe’s aboriginal territory” which the Tribe considers a culturally sensitive area. 25 South Environmental, Phase I Cultural Resource Technical Report, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, Table 2: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site, page 23. 26 South Environmental, Phase I Cultural Resource Technical Report, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, pages 22—23.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 54 Pedestrian Survey On August 29, 2025, South Environmental conducted an intensive-level cultural resources survey of the Project Site. Fieldwork included taking field notes, photography, and examination of close-scale field maps. The Project Site was surveyed in east-west oriented transects approximately 10 to 15 meters apart starting in the northeastern corner of the Site. No buildings, foundations, or utilities were observed during the survey other than the recently asphalted parking lot; no prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were identified within the Project Site as a result of the pedestrian survey.27 a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Site has not been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or California Register of Historic Resources and, based on a review of historic aerial photographs and historic maps, most of the Project Site has never been developed. Based on a CHRIS record search by the SCIC and a pedestrian survey of the Site, no historical resources were identified within the Project Site. Based on the absence of recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within 0.5-mile of the Project Site as well as the negative findings of the survey, the Project Site is considered to possess low sensitivity for subsurface cultural resources. However, the NAHC responded with a positive SLF search and the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians stated that the Site is within their traditional territory and, therefore, within a culturally sensitive area. Because no development has occurred at the Site, the possibility exists that deeper lying, previously unknown historical resources exist that ground-disturbing activities during construction could encounter. Mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be required to ensure appropriate protection and treatment of cultural resources that may qualify as historical resources in the event of their inadvertent discovery during ground-disturbance at the Site. Protection and treatment efforts recommended are consistent with applicable state and local regulatory requirements and recommendations, including CEQA statutes, CRHR evaluation criteria, AB 52, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element Policies OCS-5.1 and OCS-5.3 through OCS-5.6, and MMC Section 4.2020 definitions, including Riverside County Ordinance No. 578 pertaining to Historic Preservation District, which have been adopted and implemented to prevent and reduce effects on cultural resources, including those which may qualify as historical resources. Therefore, impacts with regards to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. Should archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) be exposed during construction activities for the Project, a qualified 27 South Environmental, Phase I Cultural Resource Technical Report, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025, page 26.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 55 archaeologist shall be retained to assess the find. Depending on the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. In the event that an identified cultural resource is of Native American origin, the qualified archaeologist shall consult with the Project applicant and the City of Menifee to implement Native American consultation procedures. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted. CUL-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California PRC, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the Site. The MLD would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. No cultural resources, including potential archaeological resources, were identified within the Project Site as a result of the CHRIS records search or pedestrian survey by a qualified archaeologist. Ground visibility was good (70-90 percent) during the survey. Additionally, the only resource recorded within 0.5-mile was associated with historic period agriculture. Based on the absence of recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within 0.5-mile of the Project Site as well as the negative findings of the survey, the Project Site is considered to possess low sensitivity for subsurface cultural resources. However, the NAHC responded with a positive SLF search and the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians stated that the Site is within their traditional territory and, therefore, within a culturally sensitive area. Because no development has occurred at the Site, the possibility exists that deeper lying, previously unknown archaeological resources exist that ground-disturbing activities during construction could encounter. Mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be required to ensure appropriate protection and treatment of cultural resources, including archaeological resources, in the event of their inadvertent discovery during ground-disturbance at the Site. Protection and treatment efforts recommended are consistent with applicable state and local regulatory requirements and recommendations, including CEQA statutes, CRHR evaluation criteria, AB 52, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element Policies OCS-5.1 and OCS-5.3 through OCS-5.6, which have been adopted and implemented to prevent and reduce effects on cultural resources, including those Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 56 which may qualify as historical resources. Therefore, impacts with regards to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures See mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 under Checklist Question 3.5(a) above. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no known human remains within the Project Site. While no formal cemeteries, other places of human internment, or burial grounds sites are known to occur within the immediate Project Site area, there is always a possibility that human remains could be encountered during construction. To reduce potential impacts related to the disturbance of human remains that may be inadvertently discovered during construction, mitigation measure CUL-2 would be implemented. As outlined in mitigation measure CUL-2, if human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that the County Coroner be notified immediately and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has determined origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to date to the Pre-contact Period, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. Therefore, with implementation mitigation measure CUL-2, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures See mitigation measure CUL-2 under Checklist Question 3.5(a) above. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As discussed above, the Project would not result in a significant impact to cultural resources. The Project Site does not contain any known cultural resources and mitigation measures have been included to prevent impacts to such resources in the event that unknown resources are accidentally encountered. It is unknown whether or not any of the properties on which the related projects are located contain cultural resources. Any related project sites that contain historical, archaeological, or human remains would be required to comply with state regulations similar to those that would be required for the Project. Nonetheless, as there are no known cultural resources on the Project Site (see analysis above), there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulative impact. Overall, based on the above, cumulative impacts associated with archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and human remains would be less than significant.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 57
3.6 Energy Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The following analysis of energy impacts that could potentially occur as a result of construction or operation of the Project is based, in part, on the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the Project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas analyses and the Operational Transportation Energy Worksheets (Energy Worksheets). The CalEEMod modeling outputs and Energy Worksheets are included as Appendix B and Appendix E to this IS/MND, respectively. a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Construction Petroleum-based fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, would be the primary sources of energy for the Project’s construction activities. This is because construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. In addition, most of the electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would be turned off when not in use to avoid unnecessary consumption. Overall, the use of electricity during construction would be temporary and is typically a fraction of the electrical demand during operation, which, as detailed below, would be well within the supply capabilities of the provider. Petroleum-based fuels would be required to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the Site.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 58 Consumption of transportation fuel during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. Construction activities would utilize fuel-efficient equipment consistent with state and federal regulations and the contractor would be required to comply with the California Air Resource Board (CARB)’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation that restricts the idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and governs the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. In addition, per applicable regulatory requirements, the Project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert construction and demolition debris. These practices would result in efficient use of transportation-energy necessary to construct the Project. Furthermore, construction schedules and processes are already designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Operation Electricity and Natural Gas During operation of the Project, electricity and natural gas would be consumed for multiple purposes, including, but not limited to, HVAC, refrigeration, water heating, lighting, and the use of electronics, equipment, and appliances. According to the Project’s CalEEMod modeling (see Appendix B), the Project would have an electrical demand of 438,415 kilowatt-hours (or 0.44 gigawatt-hours [GWh]) per year and a natural gas demand of 394 cubic feet per year28 (or 1.1 cubic feet [cf] per day). Electricity would be provided to the Project Site by Southern California Edison (SCE), which projects that its total sales in 2027 (the Project’s operational year) will be 83,735 gigawatt-hours (GWh).29 Natural gas would be provided to the Project Site by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which projects that natural gas consumption within the planning area will be approximately 2,219 million cf per day in 2027.30 As such, the Project’s demands for electricity and natural gas would represent negligible portions of the energy consumption SCE and SoCalGas anticipate and have planned supplies for within their service areas. The Project would be required to comply with all standards set in California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. California’s Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, Part 11) requires implementation of energy efficient light fixtures and building materials into the 28 Note that CalEEMod reports the natural gas consumption as 409,074 British thermal units (Btu) per year. In 2023, the United States annual average heat content of natural gas delivered to end-use sectors averaged 1,038 Btu per cubic foot. 409,074 Btu per year / 1,038 Btu per cubic foot (cf) = 394 cf per year. Source: Unites States Energy Information Administration, https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=45&t=8, accessed October 2025. 29 California Energy Commission, 2025 Integrated Energy Policy Report, Docket No. 25-IEPR-03, Electricity Demand Forms, Form 1.1a: Retail Sales of Electricity by Class or Sector, Southern California Edison, TN No. 264263, June 16, 2025. 30 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2024 California Gas Report, Table 37—Annual Gas Supply and Requirements, Estimated Years 2024 thru 2028, Average Temperature Year, page 164.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 59 design of new construction projects. Furthermore, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Energy Code (CBC Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the Energy Commission. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The standards are updated every three years and each iteration is more energy efficient than the previous standards. Furthermore, the Project would continue to reduce its use of nonrenewable energy resources as the electricity generated by renewable resources provided by SCE continues to increase to comply with state requirements through Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), which requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. Petroleum-Based Fuels Transportation-related energy in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel would also be consumed during Project operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips to and from the Project Site by employees and visitors. According to the Project’s CalEEMod modeling (see Appendix B of this document), the Project would result in 4,640,967 annual VMT. According to CARB’s On-Road Emissions Factor (EMFAC) model, in Riverside County, diesel-powered vehicles will account for 13.86 percent of all on-road VMT and will have an average fuel efficiency weighted for percentage of miles traveled of 9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2027, while gasoline-powered vehicles will account for 74.37 percent of on-road VMT with a fuel efficiency of 23 mpg; electric-powered vehicles, fuel-cell-electric-powered vehicles, natural-gas-powered vehicles, and plug-in hybrid vehicles will account for the remaining on-road VMT.31 Accordingly, using the same percentages of VMT and average fuel economy projected by EMFAC, operation of the Project would consume approximately 71,471 gallons of diesel fuel and 150,065 gallons of gasoline per year.32 According to CARB’s EMFAC model, on-road vehicles in Riverside County will consume approximately 299 million gallons of diesel and approximately 542 million gallons of gasoline in 2027.33 Accordingly, fuel consumption by visitors and employees during operation of the Project would represent a negligible portion of fuel consumed in the County. Over the lifetime of the Project, the fuel efficiency of vehicles is expected to increase as a result of numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency, such as efforts to accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero-emissions vehicles in California, and increasingly stringent emissions standards. As a result, the amount of petroleum consumed as a 31 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2025 on-road vehicle emissions factor model (Modeling input: Riverside County; Fleet Aggregate; Annual; 2027). The modeling input values are considered generally representative of conditions for the region and representative of the majority of vehicles associated with Project related VMT. See Operational Transportation Energy Worksheet in Appendix E of this document. 32 Calculated as follows for diesel: 13.86 percent of total 4,640,967 VMT = 643,238 diesel VMT / 9 diesel mpg = 71,471 gallons of diesel. Calculated as follows for gasoline: 74.37 percent of total 4,640,967 VMT = 3,451,487 gasoline VMT / 23 gasoline mpg = 150,065 gallons of gasoline. 33 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2025 on-road vehicle emissions factor model (Modeling input: Riverside County; Fleet Aggregate; Annual; 2027. See Operational Transportation Energy Worksheet in Appendix E of this document.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 60 result of vehicular trips to and from the Project Site during operation would be expected to correspondingly decrease over time due to improvements in the fuel economies of the fleet of vehicles used to access the Project. Additionally, as detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.17(a), the Project would not conflict with circulation system plans pertaining to alternative modes of transportation. Summary Based on the above, although the Project would increase energy use at the Project Site, the electrical, natural gas, and petroleum-based fuel demands would be a small fraction of projected demands within the service area of suppliers and, due to efficiency increases, are expected to diminish over time (particularly with respect to petroleum). As such, the Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. State regulations for energy efficiency are contained within California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, both of which are set forth in CCR Title 24. California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards were established in 1978 and serve to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. These standards include regulations for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every 3 years to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies. CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential, and state-owned buildings, as well as schools and hospitals. The new 2022 standards became effect on January 1, 2023. As enforced through Title 8 of the MMP, the Project would be required to meet Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards to reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency. At the regional/local level, the Project would also be subject to the policies set forth in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 is the most recent update to their RTP/SCS. Connect SoCal is a regional growth-management strategy that targets per-capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the Southern California region pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375. With regard to individual developments, such as the Project, Connect SoCal’s goal is to create human-centered communities (i.e., “15-Minute Communities”) to increase mobility options and reduce travel distances. The strategies and policies set forth in Connect SoCal include supporting local jurisdictions and private developers to redevelop underutilized properties and increasing access Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 61 to neighborhood amenities, open space and urban greening, job centers, and multimodal mobility options. The Project would develop an unutilized site with neighborhood-serving commercial land uses within an existing residential community adjacent to other commercial amenities. The Site’s location adjacent to existing transit and bicycle facilities would serve to reduce per-employee VMT and associated fuel consumption within the region, consistent with the goals of Connect SoCal. The Project would include bike racks in support of multimodal transportation, as well as electric-vehicle charging stations and solar panels in support of reduced-emissions and renewable energy sources. Based on the above, the Project would implement features and systems designed to reduce the consumption of energy and has been located consistent with policies designed to reduce VMT. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative development would increase demand for energy resources within the state and across the county. However, new iterations of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would require increasingly more efficient appliances and building materials that reduce energy consumption in new development. As described above, the Project would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. The Project’s electricity and natural gas consumption would a negligible percent of the anticipated and planned for consumption within the SCE and SoCalGas service areas. Cumulative projects would also be required by the City, as applicable, to conform to current federal, state, and local energy conservation standards, including the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR Part 6), the CALGreen Code (24 CCR Part 11), and SB 743. Therefore, the energy demand and use associated with the Project and cumulative projects would not substantially contribute to a cumulative impact on existing or proposed energy supplies or resources, and would not cause a significant cumulative impact on energy resources. Future development would be subject to the Title 24 standards in place at the time of construction. It is speculative whether other projects would conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy. However, future projects would be subject to CEQA and would evaluate whether they would conflict with applicable plans. The Project would not conflict with applicable plans for renewable energy because it would be required to conform to current federal, state, and local energy conservation standards, including the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR Part 6), the CALGreen Code (24 CCR Part 11), and SB 743. Because the Project would be consistent with the underlying land use designation of the Project Site, the Project’s development and employee growth has been anticipated in planning projections for the region (SCAG’s Connect SoCal) and would not represent new energy demands Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 62 within the region. The Project’s location proximate to existing transit and inclusion of bicycle parking would encourage a reduction in the use of gasoline-fueled vehicles, and the inclusion of roof space for future solar panels is consistent with plans for renewable energy use. As such, the Project would not conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As such, the Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact with respect to consistency with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 63
3.7 Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 64 The following analysis of impacts related to geology and soils that could potentially occur as a result of construction or operation of the Project is based, in part, on the Project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report (Geotechnical Report) prepared by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., in May 2023. The Geotechnical Report 34 is included as Appendix F to this IS/MND and its findings, conclusions, and recommendations are incorporated by reference herein. Work conducted pursuant to the Project’s Geotechnical Report included a field exploration consisting of five exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 30 feet below the ground surface, laboratory testing of soil samples collected during advancement of the soil borings in order to determine pertinent physical and chemical soil properties, and an engineering analysis of the Project. The Project’s Paleo Assessment was written in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and included a review of existing geologic maps and primary literature regarding fossiliferous geologic units within the Project Site vicinity and region, as well as a search of pertinent local and regional museum repository records for paleontological localities within and nearby the Project area. a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? No Impact. The California Geological Survey establishes regulatory zones, called Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, surrounding the surface trace of active faults in California. These zones identify areas where a potential surface fault rupture could prove hazardous for buildings used for human occupancy. For the purposes of the Alquist-Priolo Act, an “active” fault is one that has ruptured in the last 11,000 years (or a Holocene-active fault). The Project Site is not within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards35 and no Holocene-active or pre-Holocene faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the Site. As such, the Geotechnical Report determined that the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the Site during the design life of the Project is very low to remote.36 In addition, the Project would not involve mining operations or deep excavation that could create unstable seismic conditions or stresses in the Earth’s crust. Accordingly, the Project would not exacerbate existing fault rupture conditions. Therefore, the Project would not 34 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023. 35 California Department of Conservation, California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application map, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed September 2025. 36 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023, page 6.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 65 cause substantial adverse effects due to rupture of a known earthquake fault and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. Although no faults are known to cross the Project Site, the Site is located in the seismically active Southern California region, which generally experiences moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on any of the many active faults in the region. The closest known active fault to the Project Site is the Elsinore Fault, which is located approximately 8 miles to the southwest and has a maximum modal magnitude of 7.27.37 In addition, numerous active faults, including buried thrust faults without surface traces, cross-cross the Southern California region and could result in moderate to significant ground shaking. Accordingly, the Site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. However, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. State and local code requirements ensure that buildings are designed and constructed in a manner that, although the buildings may sustain damage during a major earthquake, would reduce the substantial risk that buildings would collapse. Specifically, the state and City mandate compliance with numerous rules related to seismic safety, including the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Seismic Safety Act, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the City’s General Plan Safety Element, and the Menifee Building Code. Pursuant to those laws, the Project must demonstrate compliance with the applicable provisions of these safety requirements before permits can be issued for construction. The Menifee Building Code incorporates current seismic design provisions of the 2022 California Building Code, with City amendments, to minimize seismic impacts. The 2022 California Building Code incorporates the latest seismic design standards for structural loads and materials, as well as provisions from the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to mitigate losses from an earthquake and maximize earthquake safety. To ensure compliance with applicable state and local standards and requirements, Section 7.90.070 of the MMC requires preparation of geotechnical reports for review and approval by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. The Project’s Geotechnical Report (Appendix F) calculated site-specific seismic design criteria based on peak ground 37 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023, page 6.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 66 accelerations anticipated under maximum credible earthquake parameters. With incorporation of the site- and project-specific recommendations, the Geotechnical Report concluded that the Project Site is suitable for development of the Project and the Project would not have adverse geotechnical effects on the surrounding developments.38 Consistent with Section 7.90.070 of the MMC, incorporation of the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report would be ensured through their establishment as conditions of the Project’s grading permit. Given the nature of the proposed commercial uses, completion of the Project would not cause seismic ground shaking to occur. The Project would not involve mining operations, deep excavations into the earth, or borings of large areas and thus would not exacerbate potential onsite seismic conditions. As a result, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Different types of ground failure that could occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking include landslides, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture and liquefaction/lateral spreading. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, topography, the state of the subsurface materials, and groundwater conditions. Based on the subsurface exploration of the Site and laboratory testing of the subsurface materials, the Geotechnical Report determined that these secondary effects of seismic activity are considered unlikely for the Project Site. Specifically with regard to liquefaction, the Geotechnical Report determined that the Project would be supported by compacted fill and competent old alluvium and that the depth to groundwater (greater than 50 feet below the ground surface) is relatively deep beneath the Site. As such, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and lateral spreading beneath the proposed structures was concluded to be very low to remote.39 In addition, development of the Project would occur in compliance with regulatory requirements for site- and project-specific seismic design, including the California Building Code and the MMC, and is required to be constructed in accordance with the 38 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023, pages 6 and 11. 39 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023, page 12.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 67 recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Compliance with building codes and implementation of the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report would be ensured through the review and approval of Project grading plans prior to the issuance of construction and grading permits. As such, the Project would not cause substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. iv) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. Landslide debris was not observed during subsurface exploration and no ancient landslides have been mapped or are known to exist on or in the vicinity of the Site. Geologic mapping and review of aerial imagery conducted during preparation of the Geotechnical Report did not reveal geomorphic expressions indicative of landsliding.40 Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would temporarily expose soils to wind and water erosion, which in turn could result in sedimentation of downstream drainages. However, as discussed in detail in response to Checklist Question 3.10(a), pursuant to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit adopted by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), the Project would be required to prepare a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) outlining the Project’s BMPs to prevent the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction. The SWPPP would set forth BMPs for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges to minimize erosion. BMPs can include physical barriers such as sandbags and straw wattles at storm drain inlets; limitations on work periods during storm events; stabilized construction entrance/exit; protection of stockpiled materials; and a variety of other measures that can substantially reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Compliance with NPDES Construction General Permit requirements and SWPPP protocols would be ensured as part of the standard grading plan check prior to the issuance of grading or building permits pursuant to MMC Section 7.90.050. MMC Section 7.90.060 40 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023, page 6.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 68 also requires the Project to incorporate an erosion control plan into the grading plan. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, all hazardous materials required for construction would be used and stored in designated construction staging areas within the boundaries of the Project Site and their transport, use, and storage would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws. As also discussed in detail in response to Checklist Question 3.10(a), the Santa Ana Region Area-Wide Urban Runoff Management Program (MS4) Permit also requires projects to implement low-impact development (LID) features during operation in order to reduce urban runoff pollution to the “maximum extent practicable.” In addition to preventing the discharge of pollution, LID features also prevent erosion and siltation. The Project’s LID features include temporary retention and treatment of surface runoff prior to discharge to the existing storm drain in Newport Road. As the majority of the Project Site would be covered in impervious surfaces and no areas of exposed soil would be permitted at the Site, the proposed treatment system would have no contact with eroded soils or sediment prior to discharge into the public storm drain system. In addition, all miscellaneous areas of pervious surfaces (e.g., landscaping) would be contained and secured with plantings or other ground cover, which would prevent areas of exposed soil. Surface drainage at the Site currently sheet flows over the Site’s weeds/grasses and soil toward Newport Road. Therefore, the Project’s developed conditions would decrease the potential for erosion on or in the vicinity of the Site. Based on the above, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. As detailed above in response to Checklist Question 3.7(a), the geologic units at the Project Site are not considered susceptible to liquefaction/lateral spread or landslides. In addition, no conditions that could contribute to soil instability effects, such as steep slopes susceptible to landslides and/or free faces susceptible to lateral spread, are known to exist in the surrounding vicinity of the Site. Subsidence is the gradual settling or sudden collapse (i.e., compaction) of the soil surface due to the removal of subsurface materials, most often groundwater, oil, natural gas, or mineral resources. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. The Project Site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence and no large-scale extraction of subsurface materials is occurring at or in the vicinity of the Site. The Geotechnical Report concluded that subsidence is expected to be negligible to approximately Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 69
0.01-foot.41 In addition, the Project would not require and does not propose the direct withdraw or extraction of subsurface materials, the removal of which could cause subsidence. Collapsible soils are generally dry, low density, silty soils with high void space or air gaps between the soil grains that compact and collapse when saturated with water. Soil collapse can occur just by the weight of the soil itself or the weight of a structure, such as a foundation. The results of laboratory testing conducted on the soil beneath the Project Site indicated that the topsoil at the Site is slightly moist and loose, while the underlying alluvium is slightly moist to moist, medium dense to very dense. Accordingly, the Project’s Geotechnical Report includes site- and project-specific recommendations for ground preparation of fill areas intended to diminish the potential for hydro-consolidation (collapse), slope instability, and/or settlement. Specifically, the Geotechnical Report recommends remedial grading extend beyond the perimeter of proposed structures a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the excavation or a minimum of five feet, whichever is greater, resulting in removal depths varying from three to five feet below existing grade in building areas and two to three feet below existing grade in parking lot areas.42 Furthermore, surface runoff from the Project would be collected in a network of grated inlets and directed to a temporary underground detention basin prior to discharge into the storm drain network, thereby preventing the saturation of the soil beneath the Site or adjacent properties. Based on the above, the Project would not be located on an unstable geologic unit that would result in onsite liquefaction, lateral spread, landslide, or subsidence, and the onsite potential for collapse would be addressed through adherence to the site- and project-specific development recommendations contained within the Project’s Geotechnical Report. In addition, the Project would not result an unstable soil conditions off-site; temporary excavations, including those located in proximity to existing structures on adjacent properties, would be supported with sloping or shoring measures to ensure stable excavations and lateral support of existing buildings, and retaining wall design and drainage would achieve the support required based on anticipated soil pressures and forces. The Project would not involve excavation of a hillside and does not propose the ongoing withdraw or extraction of subsurface materials. As such, the Project would not cause off-site conditions related to unstable soil. Furthermore, development of the Project would occur in compliance with regulatory requirements for construction site management and geologic conditions, including the California Building Code and the MMC, and would be required to implement the recommendations of the site- and project-specific Geotechnical Report. Compliance with building codes and implementation of the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report would be ensured through the City’s review and approval of Project grading plans prior to the issuance of construction and grading permits. 41 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023, page 9. 42 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023, page 7.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 70 Therefore, impacts related to the Project’s potential to result in on- or off-site effects of unstable soil would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are soils that expand when water is added and shrink when dry. According to the Project’s Geotechnical Report, the onsite soils exhibit an expansions potential of Very Low.43 Site- and project-specific recommendations for footings and building floor slabs were outlined in the Geotechnical Report according to this potential. With incorporation of the site- and project-specific recommendations, the Geotechnical Report concluded that the Project Site is suitable for development of the Project and the Project would not have adverse geotechnical effects on the surrounding developments.44 Consistent with Section 7.90.070 of the MMC, incorporation of the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report would be ensured through their establishment as conditions of the Project’s grading permit. As such, impacts related to expansive soil would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The Project would be served by the existing City sewer system, and no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system would be required. As a result, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 43 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023, page 15. 44 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 364-030-016, Located South of Newport Road and West of Menifee Road, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, Project No. 234941-10A, May 11, 2023, pages 6 and 11.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 71 f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A unique geologic feature is a rare, distinct, or scientifically valuable natural landform or formation, such as caves, lava fields, or exposed structural characteristic like rock outcrops, folds, and faults that could provide scientific understanding of the geologic history of the area or region. The Project Site is generally flat and covered in annual weeds/grasses. No unique geologic features described above exist on or in the vicinity of the Site. However, according to the City’s General Plan, the Project Site is located in an area with high paleologic sensitivity.45 The Project Site is underlain by Quaternary old alluvial fan deposits. Previously discovered paleontological resources within the region’s Quaternary deposits (specifically from the Pleistocene Epoch of the Quaternary Period) have included mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, dire wolves, short-faced bears, saber-toothed cats, horses, camels, and bison.46 Ground-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed sediments with high paleologic sensitivity could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources within those sediments. Accordingly, General Plan Implementation Action OSC-38 states that paleontological monitoring is required in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources, such as areas mapped as having high paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, mitigation measure GEO-1 requiring paleontological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities and proper treatment consistent with regulatory standards is required for the Project. Impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the Project Applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010), who shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the star of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a Paleontological Worker Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should construction personnel discover fossils. Paleontological Monitoring and Salvage. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground-disturbing construction activities within previously undisturbed sediments assigned high paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collections and salvage of 45 City of Menifee, General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, Exhibit OSC-4: Paleologic Resource Sensitivity, August 6, 2013. 46 City of Menifee, General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Background Documents & Definitions, page 8.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 72 paleontological resources and who meets the minimum standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced in frequency or ceased entirely based on geologic observations, such as the recognition that sediments disturbed by Project activities consist of disturbed and/or non-fossil-bearing fill sediments. Such decisions shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all construction activity within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find. If it is determined that the find is scientifically significant, the following shall be completed: Fossil Salvage. The paleontological monitor shall salvage (excavate and recover) the find to protect it from damage/destruction. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor with minimal disruption to construction activities. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits. After the find is salvaged, construction activity may resume. Fossil Preparation and Curation. Fossils shall be identified to the lowest (most-specific) possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities (or laboratory preparation and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods employed; an overview of Site geology; and, if fossils were discovered, analysis of the fossils, including physical description, taxonomic identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the City and, if fossil curation occurred, the designated scientific institution. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Potential cumulative impacts on geology and soils could result from projects that combine to exacerbate geologic hazards, including seismically-induced ground failure or unstable geologic conditions. However, most, if not all, geology and soil hazards associated with development projects would be site-specific and are typically reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to building code requirements, such that they do not combine to become cumulatively considerable. As with the Project, individual cumulative Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 73 projects would also be required to adhere to grading and construction standards that minimize the potential for erosion and associated slope failure to occur. Incorporation of engineering design standards and requirements, implementation of required construction practices, and implementation of the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report would ensure that the potential for geological impacts resulting from the Project would be less than significant. Because geologic hazards are site-specific and not cumulative in nature, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to geologic hazards. Potential cumulative impacts to paleontological resources could occur if development of the Project and related projects throughout the City and region disturb or destroy such resource during ground-disturbing activities. As detailed above, the Project would incorporate mitigation measure GEO-1, which would ensure paleontological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities and proper treatment of any encountered paleontological resources in the event of their discovery consistent with applicable regulatory standards. The paleologic sensitivity of other development sites are not known; however, all development plans would be subject to review and approval of their jurisdiction and would be required to incorporate all mitigation measures and/or standard conditions of approval consistent with the requirements and standards of that jurisdiction. Within the City, development at sites within areas of high paleologic sensitivity would be required to conduct paleontological monitoring consistent with General Plan Implementation Action OSC-38. As such, impacts to paleontological resources would not be cumulatively significant.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 74
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The following analysis of impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could potentially occur as a result of construction or operation of the Project is primarily based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) modeling results for the Project’s construction and operational activities. The results of the CalEEMod emissions modeling are attached to this IS/MND as Appendix B. Global Climate Change California is a substantial contributor of global GHGs, emitting over 371.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year.47 Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions. The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of carbon dioxide (CO2), CH4, and nitrous dioxide (N2O) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm). For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period 47 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2022, September 20, 2024 Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 75 range. As of September 2024, the highest monthly average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was recorded at 426.5 ppm.48 Regulatory Framework Federal The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)49 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below two degrees Celsius, which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. State Various Statewide and local initiatives to reduce the State’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is under way, and there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term. Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then the CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. 48 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/, accessed October 2025. 49 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 76 Senate Bill 32 Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB Scoping Plan On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce GHG emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million MTCO2e under a business as usual (BAU) scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MTCO2e, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020. The Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. The measures described in the Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The Scoping Plan update also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal, established in Executive Order S-3-05, and observes that “a mid-term statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course to meet our long-term goal.” On January 20, 2017, CARB released the proposed Second Update to the Scoping Plan, which identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The Second Update was finalized in November 2017 and approved on December 14, 2017 and reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update establishes a new Statewide emissions limit of 260 million MTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030. On December 15, 2022, CARB released the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), which identifies the strategies achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. The 2022 Scoping Plan contains the GHG reductions, technology, and clean energy mandated by statutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan was developed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 through a substantial reduction in fossil fuel dependence, while at the same time increasing deployment of efficient non-combustion technologies and distribution of clean energy. The plan would also reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and would include mechanical CO2 capture and sequestration actions, as well as emissions and Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 77 sequestration from natural and working lands and nature-based strategies. Under 2022 Scoping Plan, by 2045, California aims to cut GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels, reduce smog-forming air pollution by 71 percent, reduce the demand for liquid petroleum by 94 percent compared to current usage, improve health and welfare, and create millions of new jobs. This plan also builds upon current and previous environmental justice efforts to integrate environmental justice directly into the plan, to ensure that all communities can reap the benefits of this transformational plan. Specifically, this plan: • Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030. • Identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels. • Focuses on strategies for reducing California’s dependency on petroleum to provide consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and support economic growth and clean sector jobs. • Integrates equity and protecting California’s most impacted communities as driving principles throughout the document. • Incorporates the contribution of natural and working lands (NWL) to the State’s GHG emissions, as well as their role in achieving carbon neutrality. • Relies on the most up-to-date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools to address the existential threat that climate change presents, including carbon capture and sequestration, as well as direct air capture. • Evaluates the substantial health and economic benefits of taking action. • Identifies key implementation actions to ensure success. Local Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) formally adopted the Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHGs from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). Specially, these strategies are to: • Focus growth near destinations and mobility options; • Promote diverse housing choices; • Leverage technology innovations; • Support implementation of sustainability policies; and • Promote a green region. Furthermore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the State-mandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Some Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 78 of these tools include center focused placemaking, focusing on priority growth areas, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions. The most recent 2024-2050 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal 2024) was adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council in April 2024. The Connect SoCal 2024 outlines a vision for a more resilient and equitable future, with investment, policies, and strategies for achieving the region’s shared goals through 2050. The Connect SoCal 2024 sets forth a forecasted regional development pattern which, when integrated with the transportation network, measures, and policies, will reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light-duty trucks and achieve the GHG emissions reduction target for the region set by the CARB. In addition, the Connect SoCal 2024 is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that outline how the region can achieve California’s GHG emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements. These are articulated in a set of Regional Strategic Investments, Regional Planning Policies, and Implementation Strategies. The Regional Planning Policies are a resource for County Transportation Commissions (CTCs) and local jurisdictions, who can refer to specific policies to demonstrate alignment with the Connect SoCal 2024 when seeking resources from State or federal programs. The Implementation Strategies articulate priorities for SCAG efforts in fulfilling or going beyond the Regional Planning Policies. City of Menifee General Plan The City’s General Plan describes the desired, positive future of the City by conceiving important desired characteristics. The General Plan is made up of eight elements: Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space, and Conservation, Community Design, Economic Development, Safety, and Noise. Applicable goals and policies related to GHG reduction from the General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element are listed below. Goal OSC-4: Efficient and environmentally appropriate use and management of energy and mineral resources to ensure their availability for future generations. Policy OSC-4.1: Apply energy efficiency and conservation practices in land use, transportation demand management, and subdivision and building design. Policy OSC-4.2: Evaluate public and private efforts to develop and operate alternative systems of energy production, including solar, wind, and fuel cell. Goal OSC-9: Reduced impacts to air quality at the local level by minimizing pollution and particulate matter. Policy OCS-9.5: Comply with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Part 1 of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Title 24 Part 6 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Goal OSC-10: An environmentally aware community that is responsive to changing climate conditions and actively seeks to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions. Policy OSC-10.1: Align the City's local GHG reduction targets to be consistent with the statewide GHG reduction target of AB 32.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 79 Policy OSC-10.2: Align the City's long-term GHG reduction goal consistent with the statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. Policy OSC-10.3: Participate in regional greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives. Policy OSC-10.4: Consider impacts to climate change as a factor in evaluation of policies, strategies, and projects. Significance Thresholds Individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to influence climate change directly. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (14 CCR 15064[h][1]). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan. This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals in its white paper: Beyond 2020 and Newhall, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions.50 The SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to work with SCAQMD staff on developing GHG CEQA significance thresholds until statewide significance thresholds or guidelines are established. In December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) per year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. From December 2008 to September 2010, the SCAQMD hosted working group meetings and revised the draft threshold proposal several times, although it did not officially provide these proposals in a subsequent document. The SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general land use development projects. The most recent proposal, issued in September 2010, uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses:51 Tier 1 – Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2. 50 Association of Environmental Professionals, Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California, October 18, 2016, https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, accessed October 2025. 51 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Greenhouse Gases CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting No. 15, September 28, 2010, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2, accessed October 2025 Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 80 Tier 2 – Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearing and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3. Tier 3 – Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MTCO2e per year), commercial projects (1,400 MTCO2e per year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MTCO2e per year). Under option 2, a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4. Tier 4 – Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MTCO2e per service population for project level analyses and 6.6 MTCO2e per service population for plan level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5. Tier 5 – Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation including the purchase of GHG offsets to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels. The SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm), thus stabilizing global climate. Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to a CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact report, which includes analyzing feasible alternatives and imposing feasible mitigation measures. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because most projects will be required to implement GHG reduction measures. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for slightly less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2eq/year). In addition, these small projects may be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. Finally, these small sources are already subject to SCAQMD’s Best Available Control Technology Guidelines for criteria pollutants and are more likely to be single-permit facilities, so they are more likely to have few opportunities readily available to reduce GHG emissions from other parts of their facility.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 81 Because the Project consists of a retail development with a day care center, the recommended SCAQMD threshold to apply to the Project is the 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all projects. Per the SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions should be amortized over the operational life of the Project, which is assumed to be 30 years.52 This impact analysis, therefore, adds amortized construction emissions to the estimated annual operational emissions and then compares operational emissions to the proposed SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Quantification of the Project’s GHG Emissions The calculation of the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the Project using recommended air quality models is described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the Project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy state CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate a project’s GHG emissions. The Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste, water/wastewater, and construction equipment. CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30 was used to calculate the GHG emissions from the Project. The CalEEMod Annual Output for the Project’s operational opening year 2027 is available in Appendix B of this IS/MND. Each source of GHG emissions is described in greater detail below. Area Sources Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. The Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 as amended on June 3, 2011. The Project’s architectural coatings would be limited to an average of 50 grams per liter or less of VOCs for building coatings and 100 grams per liter or less of VOCs for traffic coatings. The defaults were updated accordingly. Energy Usage Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on-site. No changes were made to the CalEEMod defaults. Mobile Sources Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the Project. The emissions from the vehicle trips associated with the Project have been analyzed in the manner described above in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of this IS/MND. Emissions of GHGs associated with mobile sources from operation of the Project are based on the average daily trip generation rate, trip distance, the GHG emission factors for the mobile sources, and the global warming potential 52 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 82 values for the GHGs emitted. The types of vehicles that would visit the Project Site include all vehicle types including automobiles, light-duty trucks, delivery trucks, and waste haul trucks. Modeling for the Project was conducted using the vehicle fleet mix for the Riverside County portion of the South Coast Air Basin as provided in EMFAC2021 and CalEEMod. Waste Waste includes the GHG emissions generated from the processing of waste from the Project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into a landfill. AB 341 requires that 75 percent of waste be diverted from landfills by 2020; however, to be conservative, no changes were made to the CalEEMod defaults and no reductions have been taken. Water/Wastewater Water includes the water used for the interior of the building as well as for landscaping and is based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy associated with supplying and treating water and wastewater. CALGreen standards require a 20 percent reduction in indoor water usage. To be conservative, no changes were made to the default water usage parameters and no reductions were taken. Construction The construction-related GHG emissions were also included in the analysis and were based on a 30-year amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009. The construction-related GHG emissions were calculated by CalEEMod. A summary of the results is shown below in Table 3.8-1, Project-Related GHG Emissions, and the CalEEMod outputs for the Project are provided in Appendix B of this IS/MND. As shown in Table 3.8-1, the Project’s emissions would be 1,791.91 MTCO2e per year. As the Project’s GHG emissions would be less than the 3,000 MTCO2e/year SCAQMD GHG emissions thresholds for all land uses, the Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 3.8-1, Project-Related GHG Emissions Emissions Source Estimated Project-Generated Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Maximum Annual Operation 1,777.5 Construction Emissions 1 14.41 Project Total 1,791.91 MTCO2e = metric tons of CO2 equivalent 1 Consistent with guidance from the SCAQMD, construction Emissions have been amortized over a 30-year period. Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30 for Project Opening Year 2027. Detailed modeling output datasheets are included as Appendix B to this IS/MND.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 83 Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The City of Menifee does not currently have a Climate Action Plan; therefore, the Project has been compared to the goals of CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), SCAG’s Connect SoCal, and Executive Order S-3-05/SB 32. CARB’s Scoping Plan CARB Board approved the Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines the state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit. The Scoping Plan proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health.53 The measures in the Scoping Plan have been in place since 2012. This Scoping Plan calls for an “ambitious but achievable” reduction in California’s GHG emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman, and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020. In addition, on May 22, 2014, CARB approved its first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB’s First Update).54 CARB’s First Update lays the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and many of the emission reduction strategies recommended by CARB would serve to reduce the Project’s post-2020 emissions level to the extent required by applicable by law. In November 2017, CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan.55 This Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the state’s climate goals, and includes a description of a suite of specific actions to meet the state’s 2030 GHG limit. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic 53 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, May 2009, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf, accessed October 2025. 54 California Air Resources Board, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, May 2014, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf, accessed October 2025. 55 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, accessed October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 84 growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the state’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources. These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-and Trade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources. Independent studies confirm CARB’s determination that the state’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will put the state on a pathway to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 if additional appropriate reduction measures are adopted. Even though these studies did not provide an exact regulatory and technological roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of policies could allow the statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050, suggesting that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies would allow the state to meet the 2050 target. In November of 2022, the CARB released the 2022 Scoping Plan.56 The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon. As the latest 2022 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, Project consistency with applicable strategies of the 2008, 2017, and 2022 Plan are assessed in 3.8-2, Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures. As shown in Table 3.8-2, the Project would be consistent with the applicable strategies for reducing GHG emission included in CARB’s Scoping Plan. Table 3.8-2, Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action 2008 Scoping Plan California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel, and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals.
No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the proposed Project, that are required to comply with the standards, would comply with the strategy. 56 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, November 16, 2022, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 85 Table 3.8-2, Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Energy Efficiency – Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency including new technologies, policy, and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California.
No conflict. The proposed Project would be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the proposed project that are required to comply with the standards would comply with the strategy. Vehicle Efficiency Measures – Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the proposed Project, that are required to comply with the standards, would comply with the strategy. Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures. No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the proposed Project, that are required to comply with the standards, would comply with the strategy. Green Building Strategy – Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. No conflict. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes voluntary standards, that are mandatory in the 2022 edition of the Code, on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The proposed Project would be subject to these mandatory standards. High Global Warming Potential Gases – Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases. No conflict. CARB identified five measures that reduce HFC emissions from vehicular and commercial refrigeration systems; vehicles that access the proposed Project that are required to comply with the measures would comply with the strategy.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 86 Table 3.8-2, Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste.
No conflict. The state is currently developing a regulation to reduce methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. The proposed Project would be required to comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling and waste reduction program, which comply with the 75 percent reduction required in 2020 per AB 341. Water – Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. No conflict. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable City ordinances and CAL Green requirements. 2017 Scoping Plan Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Car regulations. No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the proposed Project, that are required to comply with the standards, would comply with the strategy Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025 and at least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030.
No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the proposed Project, that are required to comply with the standards, would comply with the strategy. Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard.
No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the proposed Project, that are required to comply with the standards, would comply with the strategy Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030.
No conflict. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the proposed Project, that are required to comply with the standards, would comply with the strategy Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 87 Table 3.8-2, Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.
No conflict. The proposed Project would be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.
By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. No conflict. The proposed Project would be required to comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling and waste reduction program, which comply with the 75 percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341. 2022 Scoping Plan 100 percent of light-duty vehicle sales are ZEVs by 2035. Not Applicable. This action is in regard to vehicle sales, with an aim to have 100 percent of light-duty vehicle sales be ZEVs by 2035. The proposed Project is a retail and day care center use and would not interfere with such policymaking. Furthermore, although this action is not necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis, the proposed Project would provide raceways for charging of electric vehicles in 55 spaces, 12 of which would be installed with charging stations, including four charging stations designated for ADA van spaces. VMT per capita reduced 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045. No Conflict. The Project would not result in an unmitigated impact to VMT. The Project is a retail and day care center use located in close proximity to existing public transit and residential and commercial uses. Based on the City’s VMT analysis guidelines, the proposed Project satisfies Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening and Step 3: Project Type Screening. Therefore, this project could be screened from a VMT analysis, and could be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT per the City’s guidelines. Therefore, the Project would be anticipated to contribute to a reduction in VMT per capita.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 88 Table 3.8-2, Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action All electric appliances in new construction beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial). No Conflict. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes voluntary standards, that are mandatory in the 2019 edition of the Code, on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. In addition, the 2022 edition of the Code took effect January 1, 2023. The Project would be subject to these mandatory standards. For existing residential buildings, 80 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2035 (appliances replaced at end of life). For existing commercial buildings, 80 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2045 (appliances replaced at end of life) Not Applicable. This action is in regard to appliance sales and the proposed Project is a retail and day care center use and would not interfere with such policymaking. Furthermore, although this action is not necessarily applicable on a project-specific basis, the proposed Project would be subject to the California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) which was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes voluntary standards, that are mandatory in the 2019 and 2022 editions of the Code, on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. In addition, the 2022 edition of the Code took effect January 1, 2023. The Project would be subject to these mandatory standards. Source: California Air Resource Board Scoping Plans (2008, 2017, and 2022) SCAG’s 2020 Connect SoCal On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council unanimously voted to approve and fully adopt Connect SoCal. SCAG’s Connect SoCal is a regional growth-management strategy that targets per-capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the Southern California region. Connect SoCal integrates land use and transportation strategies that are forecasted to reduce GHG emissions to meet the state’s 2045 GHG reduction goals. Connect SoCal incorporates Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 89 local land use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans. Typically, a project would be consistent with Connect SoCal if the project does not exceed the underlying growth assumptions. The Project would generate approximately 87 new jobs (see Section 3.14, Population and Housing, of this IS/MND).57 This direct increase in employment at the Project Site would not be a substantial increase in the City, representing 0.5 percent of the existing (2019) employment and 0.6 percent of the projected employment growth over the planning period. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the underlying growth assumptions within Connect SoCal. Accordingly, based on the above, the Project would not conflict with implementation of the strategies identified in Connect SoCal that would reduce GHG emissions. Executive Order S-3-05 and SB 32 Executive Order S-3-05 establishes the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. Although there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future year analysis, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the state on a trajectory of meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance is unknown.58 CARB has expressed optimism with regard to both the 2030 and 2050 goals. It states in the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG emissions limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32.”59 With regard to the 2050 target for reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan states that the level of reduction is achievable in California.60 CARB believes that the state is on a trajectory to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and Executive Order S-3-05. This is confirmed in the Second Update, which states the following:61 57 Calculated as follows: 38,560 square-foot commercial development / 447 employees per square foot of retail/service space = 86.3 employees rounded up to 87. Source: Menifee Union School District, 2023/2024 Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, March 12, 2024, page 9. 58 California Air Resources Board, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, May 2014, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf, accessed October 2025. 59 California Air Resources Board, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, May 2014, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf, accessed October 2025. 60 California Air Resources Board, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, May 2014, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf, accessed October 2025. 61 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, accessed October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 90 The Proposed Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while also identifying new, technologically feasibility and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Proposed Plan is developed to be consistent with requirements set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and AB 197. The Project would not interfere with implementation of any of the above-described GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 because the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses.62 This analysis provides support for the conclusion that the Project would not impede the state’s trajectory toward the above-described statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050. City of Menifee General Plan Vision 2030 State policies to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy use, including the Renewables Portfolio Standard and Title 24 of the California Building Code, would reduce GHG emissions associated with the Project. Therefore, the Project would also be consistent with Goal OSC-10 of the City of Menifee General Plan Vision 2030, which supports GHG reduction efforts consistent with AB 32.63 Consequently, the Project would not conflict with the policies of the City of Menifee General Plan aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Conclusion As the Project's emissions would be less than SCAQMD’s recommended threshold and meet the threshold for compliance with Executive Order S-3-05, the Project's emissions would also comply with the goals of AB 32 and the Scoping Plan. Additionally, as the Project meets the current interim emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD, the Project would also be on track to meet the reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 mandated by SB-32. The Project’s consistency with the state’s Scoping Plan would assist in meeting each jurisdiction’s contribution to GHG emission reduction targets in California. With respect to future GHG targets under SB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, CARB has also made clear its legal interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet the SB 32 40 percent reduction target by 2030 and the Executive Order S-3-05 80 percent reduction target by 2050. This legal interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that future regulations will be adopted to continue the trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets. The majority of the post 2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via 62 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008. 63 City of Menifee General Plan Vision 2030, Open Space and Recreation Element.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 91 regulatory requirements at the state level and the Project would be required to comply with these regulations as they come into effect. Based on the above, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Although the Project is expected to emit GHGs, the emission of GHGs by a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. Therefore, in the case of global climate change, the proximity of the Project to other GHG emission generating activities is not directly relevant to the determination of a cumulative impact because climate change is a global condition. According to CAPCOA, “GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective.”64 The resultant consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s GHG emissions typically would be very small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. As discussed above, the Project would emit less than SCAQMD’s recommended threshold and would not conflict with the GHG emission reduction goals of the CARB Scoping Plan, Executive Order S-3-05 and SB 32, or the City of Menifee General Plan. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions and their effects on climate change would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 64 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA and Climate change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, 2008, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf, accessed October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 92
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 93 a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. Construction Construction of the Project would involve the temporary use of potentially hazardous materials, including gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, lubricants, grease, welding gases (e.g., acetylene, oxygen, and argon), solvents, and paints. However, as previously discussed in detail in response to Checklist Question 3.7(b), the Project would be required to prepare a site-specific SWPPP outlining the Project’s BMPs to prevent the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction. Any potentially hazardous materials would be used and stored in designated construction staging areas within the boundaries of the Project Site. Furthermore, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction of the Project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. Because no buildings or structures currently exist on the Project Site, no special requirements for the handling, disposal, or abatement of asbestos or lead-based paint would be required. The use of potentially hazardous materials associated with standard construction activities for their intended purpose would not pose a significant risk to the public or environment. It is anticipated that the amounts of hazardous materials required for construction would be of typical amounts; however, if hazardous materials and/or petroleum products are stored on the Project Site above applicable regulatory thresholds, the applicable documents and plans would be submitted accordingly. These thresholds include those outlined in the Hazardous Material Business Plan rules (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1; 19 CCR, Division 2, Chapter 4) and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan rules (40 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Part 112). Appropriate plans would be prepared as required by regulation and submitted to the local Certified Unified Program Agency, which, for the Project Site, is the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division, and kept onsite through construction of the Project. BMPs and spill prevention and response procedures required by these rules would be implemented. Hazardous wastes accumulated during Project construction may include unused or off-specification paint and primer, paint thinner, solvents, and vehicle- and equipment-maintenance-related materials, many of which can be recycled. Empty containers for such materials (e.g., drums and totes) may also be returned to vendors, if possible. Hazardous waste that cannot be recycled would be transported by a licensed hazardous waste hauler using a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest and disposed of at an appropriately permitted facility. The transport and disposal of these substances is subject to applicable federal, state, and local health and safety laws and Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 94 regulations that are intended to minimize health risk to the public associated with hazardous materials. Operation The use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with operations of the Project would not differ substantially in type and quantity from other typical and nearby commercial developments (e.g., cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, grease and oil, and various other commercially available substances), none of which would be used, stored, or disposed of at the Site in manners that are currently considered environmental concerns. Use of these materials would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the federal, state, and local agencies related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. As with construction, any hazardous materials and petroleum products stored onsite during operation in quantities that exceed regulatory threshold would be regulated by Hazardous Material Business Plan and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rules and regulations. The storage and disposal of hazardous wastes, if generated would be managed in accordance with DTSC hazardous waste regulations found in CCR Title 22, Division 4.5, and Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations under 40 CFR Parts 239 through 282. Based on the above, with adherence to federal, state, and local regulations for the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction or operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The Project could release hazardous materials into the environment during construction if spills of hazardous materials required for normal construction activities (vehicle fuels, paints, oils, and transmission fluids) occur or if contaminated soils and/or groundwater are encountered during excavation and proper erosion controls are not implemented. The Project could also release hazardous materials into the environment during operation if spills or emissions of hazardous materials required for normal operation (cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, grease and oil, and various other commercially available substances) occurs.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 95 Construction As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.9(a), standard construction BMPs for the use and handling of hazardous materials required for construction would be implemented to avoid or reduce the potential for spills and releases pursuant to local, state, and federal regulations. There are no existing structures that could contain hazardous materials requiring specialized handling or disposal and, as detailed further in response to Checklist Questions 3.9(d), the Project is not expected to encounter contaminated soil or groundwater. In addition, given a depth to groundwater at the Site of over 50 feet below existing grade, construction would not be expected to encounter groundwater and would, accordingly, not have the potential to release hazardous materials into the groundwater table nor into the storm drain system through discharge of potentially contaminated dewatering water. Furthermore, as detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.7(b), construction would be subject to the regulations and requirements outlined in the SWPPP pursuant to the NPDES Construction General Permit, and in the erosion control plan pursuant to MMC Section 7.90.060. Operation As previously discussed, the use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with operation of the Project would not differ dramatically in type and quantity from typical and surrounding commercial developments and the use, storage, and disposal of these materials would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the federal, state, and local agencies. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. There is one school located within one-quarter mile of the Project Site: the Callie Kirkpatrick Elementary School, adjacent to the Project Site’s southern boundary. In addition, the Project may include an onsite daycare. However, as detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.9(a), hazardous materials used and stored by the Project would be those commonly used and stored by commercial land uses. Furthermore, such hazardous materials would be use, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with the Project’s use and storage of common industrial and commercial hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school would be less than significant.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 96 Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various State agencies to compile lists of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized releases from underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking water wells, and solid waste facilities where there is known migration of hazardous waste, and submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an annual basis. A search of the specific lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 was conducted. The Project Site was not listed on any such lists.65 Therefore, the Project would have no impact with regard to Government Code Section 65962.5. Mitigation Measures None required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Perris Valley Airport located approximately 6 miles to the northwest; however, the Site is not located within the influence area of the Perris Valley Airport, including the boundaries of safety or noise contours. The Project Site is located within the Airport Influence Area of the March Inland Port Airport; however, the Site is located within the Compatibility Zone E, which corresponds to the zone of lowest intensity and restriction, and does not include restrictions for dwellings as development in Zone E has been determined to pose no hazards to flights.66 Prohibited land uses for Zone E consist of hazards to flights, which the Project does not propose and would not be require.67 In addition, the Project would comply with all applicable real estate disclosures.68 The Site is not located within any safety or noise contours for the March Inland Port Airport and, accordingly, the Project would not expose 65 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed August 2025. 66 March Inland Port Airport Authority, Master Plan Update, February 2025, page 80. 67 Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. Land use development that may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited and man-made features must be designed to avoid heightened attraction of birds. Source: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, March Air Reserve Base / Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, November 13, 2014, Table MA-2: Basic Compatibility Criteria. 68 As part of certain real estate transactions involving residential property within the March Inland Port Airport influence area, information regarding airport proximity and the existence of aircraft overflights must be disclosed. Source: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, March Air Reserve Base / Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, November 13, 2014, Table MA-2: Basic Compatibility Criteria.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 97 people to a safety hazard or excessive noise levels associated with airports and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City’s 2020 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) identifies hazardous situations, phases of emergency management, and communication and warning systems available to effectively deal with emergency situations. The Project Site does not contain any critical facilities; however, both Newport Road and Menifee Road adjacent to the Site are designated as evacuation routes in the City’s Safety Element.69 Construction activities, including staging of equipment and supplies, would occur onsite; however, construction would occur offsite in public rights-of-way during connection of new onsite utilities to existing offsite facilities and installation of roadway improvements detailed in Section 3.17, Transportation, of this IS/MND. Mitigation measure TRA-2 provided in Section 3.17 requires the Project to prepare for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). The CTMP would outline the protocol for partial or full lane closures, including notification and coordination with emergency response providers and managers (e.g., police/sheriff, fire/rescue, etc.) in order to reduce vehicular delays on the City’s roadway network as a result of Project construction activities and avoid interference with emergency response or evacuation within the vicinity of the Site. Operation of the Project could impede vehicular response or evacuation through associated increases in roadway traffic. However, mitigation measure TRA-1 provided in Section 3.17, Transportation, of this IS/MND, requires payment of fair share contributions toward future intersection and roadway segment improvements to ensure that impacts associated with increased traffic on the City’s roadway network would not be significant. In addition, design, construction, and operation of these required improvements, as well as of improvements in the adjacent roadway for Site access and internal circulation, would be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and would be reviewed for conformance with applicable design standards for width, clearance, load, slope/grade, and turning radii of the City Engineering Department and the Menifee Fire Department established for safe and efficient access and circulation of emergency vehicles. As such, operational traffic increases and proposed and required roadway improvements would avoid interfering with emergency response or evacuation. 69 City of Menifee, General Plan, Safety Element, 2013, Exhibit S-7: Critical Facilities and Exhibit S-9: Evacuation Routes.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 98 With implementation of mitigation measures TRA-1 and TRA-2, the Project would comply with all applicable local requirements related to emergency vehicle access and circulation, and would not impede emergency response or evacuation. As such, the Project would not impair an emergency response plan or evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures See mitigation measures TRA-1 and TRA-2 in Section 2,17, Transportation, of this IS/MND. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Less than Significant Impact. As mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CalFIRE), the Project Site is located outside of fire hazard severity zones.70 There are no wildlands located on or in the area surrounding the Project Site that would be susceptible to wildland fires. Furthermore, all components associated with the Project would be subject to the 2022 California Building Code and the California Fire Code, or the current edition at the time the Project is permitted and developed, as adopted and enforced by Chapter 8.20 of the MMC. These codes include provisions for building materials, vegetation clearance, and defensible space for fire prevention and life safety. The Project would contain automatic fire sprinkler systems and would ensure the minimum required fire flow and hydrants as part of plan check. Implementation of the fire protection and life safety features standardized in the California Building and Fire Codes, as enforced by the MMC, would limit the potential for the Project to expose the Project to risks associated with wildland fire. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS There are a variety of hazardous material and public health and safety issues that are relevant and applicable to cumulative development within the City; however, most hazardous material and safety-related risks are localized, generally affecting a specific site and immediate surrounding area, thus minimizing the potential for an impact to combine with another project to create a cumulative scenario. In addition, many potential impacts related to hazardous materials and public health and safety risks, including the routine use of potentially hazardous materials, the release of hazardous materials into the environment, interference with emergency response and evacuation plans, and risks from wildland fires, would be minimized due to compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, as well as building code 70 California Department of Forestry and Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones, accessed September 2013.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 99 standards and safety requirements. These legal requirements and regulations would minimize the potential for health and safety risks. Cumulative projects would also be subject to these federal, state, and local regulations and building code standards related to hazardous materials and other public health and safety issues. In a manner similar to the proposed Project, adherence to these regulatory requirements and standards would reduce incremental impacts associated with public exposure to health and safety hazards in each of the affected project areas. Because cumulative projects would be fully regulated, thus reducing potential for public safety risks, cumulative impacts associated with exposure to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. Through compliance with regulatory requirements, construction and operation of the proposed Project itself would not create significant human or environmental health or safety risks that could combine with other project impacts to create a significant and cumulatively considerable impact. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 100
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 101 The following analysis of impacts to hydrology and water quality that could potentially occur as a result of construction or operation of the Project is based, in part, on the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by G&A Consulting Engineers, Inc., in January 2024;71 and the Preliminary Hydrology Report (Hydrology Report) prepared by G&A Consulting Engineers, Inc., in June 2025.72 The WQMP and Hydrology Report are included as Appendix G and Appendix H to this IS/MND and their findings, conclusions, and recommendations are incorporated by reference herein. a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant Impact. Stormwater and non-stormwater discharges in California are regulated through federal NPDES permits, which are administered by the SWRCB, through their nine regional water quality control boards. The SWRCB adopted the Construction General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (Construction General Permit) on September 2, 2009 (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, General NPDES Permit No. CAS000002) and most recently reissued the permit on September 8, 2022 (Order Nos. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2022-0057-DWQ). In addition, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) controls the discharge of pollutants from stormwater and non-stormwater into the municipal storm sewer system through the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County Within the Santa Ana Region Area-Wide Urban Runoff Management Program (MS4) Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES Permit No. CAS618033). The City of Menifee is a Co-Permittee under the MS4 Permit and is subject to the waste discharge requirements therein. The MMC enforces the Construction General Permit and the MS4 Permit through Chapter 15.01, Storm Water/Urban Runoff, which codifies the City’s Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Chapter 15.01 of the MPMC is intended to assure consistency with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, applicable implementing regulations, and any existing or future municipal NPDES Permits through outlining conditions for adherence to Permit requirements and incorporation of BMPs for the control of pollutants during construction activities and by post-construction development (operations). Chapter 15.01 also provides the City with sufficient authority to implement and enforce the requirements of applicable pollutant control regulations; to control discharges to and from those portions of the MS4 over which it has jurisdiction; and to hold dischargers to the MS4 accountable for violating applicable pollutant control laws. 71 G&A Consulting Engineers, Inc., Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Project Title: Menifee Boardwalk Project, Development No: Tentative Parcel Map 39000 (PLN24-0147), Original Date Prepared: January 1, 2024; final Revision Date: June 8, 2025. 72 G&A Consulting Engineers, Inc., Preliminary Hydrology Report for Commercial/Retail Development, Menifee, California—APN: 364-030-016, June 7, 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 102 Construction During Project construction, particularly during the grading phase, stormwater runoff from precipitation events could contain eroded sediments from exposed and stockpiled soils that would be conveyed into municipal storm drain systems. In addition, onsite watering activities to reduce airborne dust could contribute to pollutant loading in runoff. Pollutant discharges relating to the storage, handling, use and disposal of chemicals, adhesives, coatings, lubricants, and fuel could also occur. However, because Project construction would involve ground disturbance in excess of one acre, grading and construction activities are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. To demonstrate compliance with NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent must be prepared and submitted to the SWRCB providing notification and intent to comply with the Construction General Permit. The NPDES Construction General Permit also requires: (1) a SWPPP be developed to outline the Project’s stormwater pollution prevention measures and control practices; (2) that non-stormwater discharges from the construction site are eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent practicable; and (3) routine inspections be conducted of all stormwater pollution prevention measures and control practices being used at the construction site, including pre- and post-storm event inspections. The Project would be required to verify compliance with NPDES Permit requirements by monitoring their effluent, maintaining records, and filing periodic reports. In addition, pursuant to MMC Section 7.90.050, the City requires demonstration of conformance with the NPDES Construction General Permit as part of the standard grading plan check and approval. Based on the depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the Project Site (over 50 below the ground surface), construction would not be expected to encounter groundwater. In addition, no active groundwater wells that would provide a direct conduit to groundwater are located at the Project Site. Furthermore, no open or active cases of hazardous wastes and substances sites, leaking underground storage tanks, solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels, active cease and desist and corrective action orders, or hazardous waste facilities under corrective action are reported at the Project Site or within the surrounding one-mile area.73 As such, it is assumed that contaminated soils or other sources of pollution that, if exposed to stormwater during construction, could enter the groundwater table via percolation do not exist on or in the vicinity of the Project Site. As such, construction would not have the potential to encounter or introduce contaminants into the groundwater. Operation Impacts to surface water quality from land uses such as the Project can result from migration of pollutants such as oil and grease from parking areas or trash from improperly enclosed receptacles. Contaminants of concern associated with commercial developments include 73 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed August 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 103 bacteria, metals, nutrients, pesticides, toxic organic compounds, sediments, trash and debris, and oil and gas.74 However, the MS4 Permit also requires projects to implement LID features in order to reduce urban runoff pollution to the “maximum extent practicable.” New development and significant redevelopment are required to incorporate site design principles and techniques, source control measures, retention BMPs, biofiltration BMPs, and/or treatment control measures to reduce water-quality impacts during Project operations, as well as implement maintenance procedures to ensure that selected LID features provide effective, long-term pollution control. In addition, pursuant to Chapter 15.01 of the MMC, any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of an existing or future Municipal NPDES Permit is prohibited and violations are subject to liability. Chapter 15.01 also requires new development to control stormwater runoff through the use of BMPs to prevent deterioration of water quality. The Project proposes a biotreatment system that would retain and treat the Site’s surface water runoff prior to discharge to the public storm drain system. To provide runoff treatment, an MWS unit would be connected immediately downstream of an underground detention basin, which would provide storage for the two-year, five-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm volumes. A project-specific WQMP was prepared to review the Project against the requirements of the MS4 Permit and evaluate a selection of post-construction BMPs to reduce operational discharge of pollutants into the City’s stormwater conveyance systems (see Appendix G). The WQMP evaluated the Project’s proposed biotreatment system and found that LID principles and BMPs have been incorporated into the Project’s site design to fully address all drainage management area and that no alternative treatment measures would be required. The WQMP also concluded that because the Project would ultimately discharge to Lake Elsinore and the Site is identified on their co-permittee hydromodification sensitivity maps as an area not requiring mitigation, the Project’s biotreatment system would not create a hydrologic condition of concern. As shown in Table 3.10-1, Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures, the WQMP identified potential sources of runoff pollutants that could be generated by the Project and selected permanent structural and operational source control BMPs the Project would be required to incorporate and maintain. Table 3.10-1, Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures Potential Runoff Pollutant Source Permanent Structural Source Control BMP Operational Source Control BMP Onsite Storm Drain Inlets Mark inlets with the words “Only Rain Down the Storm Drain” or approved similar. PO will: • Maintain drainage system per CASQA SC-44 Drainage System Maintenance. 74 G&A Consulting Engineers, Inc., Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Project Title: Menifee Boardwalk Project, Development No: Tentative Parcel Map 39000 (PLN24-0147), Original Date Prepared: January 1, 2024; final Revision Date: June 8, 2025, Table E.1: Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type, page 20.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 104 Table 3.10-1, Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures Potential Runoff Pollutant Source Permanent Structural Source Control BMP Operational Source Control BMP • Maintain and periodically repaint or replace inlet markings. • Provide stormwater pollution prevention information to new site owners, lessees, or operators. • Include the following in lease agreements: “Tenant shall not allow anyone to discharge anything to storm drains or to store or deposit materials so as to create a potential discharge to storm drains.” Landscape / Outdoor Pesticide Use Design landscaping to minimize irrigation and runoff, to promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution. Consider using pest-resistant plants, especially adjacent to hardscape. To ensure successful establishment, select plans appropriate to site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land use, air movement, ecological consistency, and plant interactions.
PO will: • Maintain landscaping using minimum or no pesticides. • Provide IPM information to new owners, lessees, and operators.
Roofing, Gutters, Trims Avoid roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals that may leach into runoff.
Sidewalks
--
PO will: • Set a Sweeping schedule for, sidewalks to prevent accumulation of litter and debris. • Collect debris from pressure washing to prevent entry into the storm drain system. • Collect washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser and discharge to the sanitary sewer not to a storm drain.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 105 Table 3.10-1, Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures Potential Runoff Pollutant Source Permanent Structural Source Control BMP Operational Source Control BMP Condensate Drain Lines Condensate drain lines may discharge to landscape areas if the flow is small enough that runoff will not occur. Condensate drain lines may not discharge to the storm drain system.
PO = Property Owner Source: G&A Consulting Engineers, Inc., Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Project Title: Menifee Boardwalk Project, Development No: Tentative Parcel Map 39000 (PLN24-0147), Original Date Prepared: January 1, 2024; final Revision Date: June 8, 2025, Table G.1: Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures, page 25.
The Project’s WQMP, including final BMP requirements and selections would be submitted as part of the Project’s grading permit application. Consistent with Section 7.90.090 of the MMC, incorporation of the required LID BMPs and adherence to the design of the proposed biotreatment system contained within the WQMP would be ensured as part of the City’s normal grading permit application review. As with construction, based on the depth of the groundwater beneath the Project Site, operation of the Project would not require dewatering and would not have any other direct contact with the groundwater table. In addition, the Project does not propose direct percolation or injection into the groundwater beneath the Project Site for any reason. Furthermore, although the Project would include the onsite usage and storage of materials such as paints, solvents, and cleaning solutions, mixed-use residential and small commercial uses are not typically associated with the release of large amounts of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to groundwater quality. Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and manufacturers recommendations for the proper use, storage, and disposal of minor amounts of hazardous materials required for operation of the Project would ensure that the Project would not release such materials to groundwater and the Project would not be expected to expand any potential areas of contamination, increase levels of contamination, or cause regulatory water quality standards at existing production wells to be violated. Summary Incorporation of mandated BMPs during construction and installation of LID features for Project operations, as described above, would filter out stormwater contaminants such that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water. Additionally, neither construction nor operation would encounter or have access to groundwater, and would accordingly not have the potential to violate water quality standards or substantially degrade the underlying groundwater. Impacts would be less than significant.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 106 Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site overlies the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin (Basin 8-005), which is designated as a High Priority Basin for declining water levels by the California Department of Water Resources.75 However, based on the depth to groundwater beneath the Site, neither construction nor operation would require dewatering. In addition, construction and operation of the Project would use a municipal water supply and do not propose the use of any wells or other direct means of extracting groundwater for water supply use. Furthermore, although the Project Site is currently undeveloped and does not contain impervious surfaces, The Project’s WQMP determined that the Site has infiltration rates below infiltration thresholds for inclusion of infiltration BMPs.76 Therefore, the degree to which any surface water infiltration and groundwater recharge occurs onsite is assumed to be minimal. Additionally, the Project would re-route surface flow from impervious areas to pervious areas to preserve infiltration capacity.77 Potable water would be supplied by to the Project by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). According to the EMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), local supplies such as recycled water, potable groundwater, and desalinated groundwater provide half of the water supply available to EMWD’s service area. Because local groundwater basins are currently in a state of overdraft, EMWD works with stakeholders to recharge the basins with imported water and limit native groundwater production when appropriate. EMWD also utilizes recycled water in lieu of groundwater production for outdoor irrigation. Based on the above, the Project would not substantially directly interfere with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the Basin. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 75 California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard Map, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/, accessed September 2025. 76 G&A Consulting Engineers, Inc., Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Project Title: Menifee Boardwalk Project, Development No: Tentative Parcel Map 39000 (PLN24-0147), Original Date Prepared: January 1, 2024; final Revision Date: June 8, 2025, page 13. 77 G&A Consulting Engineers, Inc., Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Project Title: Menifee Boardwalk Project, Development No: Tentative Parcel Map 39000 (PLN24-0147), Original Date Prepared: January 1, 2024; final Revision Date: June 8, 2025, page 9.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 107 c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: Existing drainage patterns at the Project Site have been identified and would be preserved by the Project. In the existing condition runoff generated within the Site travels north and onto Newport Road. In the developed condition, storm water runoff would be captured by a proposed onsite storm drain and discharged to an existing storm drain in Newport Road.78 i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project would not alter the existing overall drainage pattern of the Site or area. As previously discussed in response to Checklist Question 3.7(b), the MS4 Permit requires projects to implement LID features which prevent erosion and siltation during operation. The Project’s LID features include temporary retention and treatment of surface runoff prior to discharge to the existing storm drain in Newport Road. As the majority of the Project Site would be covered in impervious surfaces and no areas of exposed soil would be permitted at the Site, the proposed treatment system would have no contact with eroded soils or sediment prior to discharge into the public storm drain system. In addition, all miscellaneous areas of pervious surfaces (e.g., landscaping) would be contained and secured with plantings or other ground cover, which would prevent areas of exposed soil. Surface drainage at the Site currently sheet flows over the Site’s weeds/grasses and soil toward Newport Road. Therefore, the Project’s developed conditions would decrease the potential for erosion on or in the vicinity of the Site. Accordingly, the Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the Site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project would not alter the existing overall drainage pattern of the Site or area. Furthermore, although the primary focus of LID requirements is to prevent the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters, implementation of LID BMPs have been shown to significantly reduce runoff volume and reduce the need for flood control. The Project’s LID BMPs would include temporary retention of surface water runoff in an underground detention basin prior to discharge to 78 G&A Consulting Engineers, Inc., Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Project Title: Menifee Boardwalk Project, Development No: Tentative Parcel Map 39000 (PLN24-0147), Original Date Prepared: January 1, 2024; final Revision Date: June 8, 2025, page 9.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 108 the existing public storm drain system. The Project’s proposed detention basin was sized to accommodate the two-year, five-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm volumes. Specifically, the Project’s WQMP (see Appendix G) calculated the volume of runoff that the Project would be required in order to comply with the MS4 Permit’s requirements based on the Site’s drainage area, surface type, impervious surfaces, and site-specific runoff factor to be 9,179 cubic feet. The Project’s proposed detention basin would be capable of retaining 11,717 cubic feet, which would accommodate the volume of runoff required by the MS4 Permit. In addition, the proposed biotreatment system would be designed with an internal bypass or overflow system to prevent upstream flooding due to large storm events exceeding LID-required design storm levels, and, consistent with requirements of the MS4 Permit, all stormwater BMPs would be designed to drain within 72 hours of the end of the rain event, which would prevent ponding or flooding onsite in the vicinity of the MWS unit. Additionally, the Project’s Hydrology Report (see Appendix H) modeled the flow rates at the outlet point for both the existing and the Project’s proposed developed conditions. Under the Project, the increase in flow rates at the outlet point to the existing storm drain system would be minimal with most storm event peak flow rates decreased as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would also not increase the potential for offsite flooding as a result of changes to drainage patterns and would improve downstream conditions. Based on the above, the Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the Site or area in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite. The impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project would not alter the existing overall drainage pattern of the Site or area and would not substantially increase the volume or speed of runoff from the Site as compared to existing conditions. Accordingly, because the capacity of the existing public storm drain system within Newport Drive adequately handles the Site’s runoff under existing conditions, it is anticipated that it would sufficiently handle the Site’s runoff under Project conditions. In addition, as discussed in response to Checklist Question 3.10(a), the Project would be required to implement LID features to reduce the release of pollution in stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The Project’s proposed grated inlets and modular wetlands Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 109 are designed to screen trash and treat stormwater for pollutants prior to discharge in the public storm drain system. Therefore, the Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the Site or area in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Project Site is within Zone X, which is a designation for areas of minimal flood hazard.79 In addition, the Project Site is not located within a Riverside County Flood Hazard Zone80 or within a tsunami hazard area;81 nor is the Site susceptible to levee breaches along watercourses or seiche in large waterbodies. However, the Project Site is located within the potential inundation area of the Diamond Valley Lake West Dam, the Diamond Valley Lake Saddle Dam, and the Diamond Valley Lake East Dam.82 These dams form Diamond Valley Lake, the largest reservoir in southern California. However, the City’s Safety Element classifies the chances of a catastrophic dam failure as a low probability.83 Additionally, the Project does not propose any structures designed to redirect flood flows, such as a dam or levee. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project Site is not located within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. The Project Site is located within the potential inundation area for the Diamond Valley Lake dams; however, the use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with operation of the Project would not differ dramatically in type and quantity from typical and surrounding commercial developments and the use, storage, and disposal of these 79 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Riverside County Panel 2070, FEMA Map Number 06065C2070H, effective August 18, 2014, http://msc.fema.gov/portal. 80 City of Menifee, General Plan, Safety Element, Exhibit S-5, Flood Hazards. 81 California Department of Conservation, California Tsunami Maps, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps, accessed September 2025. 82 City of Menifee, General Plan, Safety Element, Exhibit S-B2.2, Exhibit S-B2.3, and Exhibit S-B2.6. 83 City of Menifee, General Plan, Safety Element, Safety Background Document & Definitions, page 24.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 110 materials would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the federal, state, and local agencies. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to release pollutants as a result of inundation and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less than Significant Impact. Water Quality Control Plans Water quality control plans applicable to the Project include SARWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan: Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan), inclusive of amendments, adopted in 1995 and most recently updated in April 2025. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for surface and groundwaters, sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy, and describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Santa Ana Region. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. Construction and operation of the Project would involve activities that have the potential to conflict with the water quality goals in the Basin Plan through the spread of contaminants into surface or groundwater supplies. However, as previously detailed, construction of the Project would prevent the spread of contaminants into groundwater through compliance with all relevant NPDES requirements related to discharges from dewatering operations and would prevent the spread of contaminants into surface water through adherence to applicable regulations and BMPs for the handling and storing of hazardous materials and the requirements of the NPDES Permit, including implementation of an SWPPP for the prevention of erosion and spread of polluted runoff. These regulations and practices effectively control the potential stormwater pollution to surface water during construction. Anticipated and potential pollutants generated by operation of the Project would be addressed through the implementation of approved LID BMPs. As a Permittee under the Riverside County NPDES MS4 Permit, the City requires development and redevelopment to implement stormwater BMPs that comply with water quality objectives, including capturing and treating stormwater runoff. To comply with these requirements, the Project would include grated inlets and a MWS designed to screen trash and treat stormwater for pollutants prior to discharge in the public storm drain system pursuant to guidance contained within the Riverside County LID BMP Design Handbook. Furthermore, the use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with operations Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 111 of the commercial land uses would comply with all applicable existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling, storage, and disposal of such materials. Compliance with the NPDES MS4 permit and the Riverside County LID BMP Design Handbook requirements would ensure that the Project does not conflict with or obstruct water quality control plans and impacts would be less than significant. Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans On September 16, 2014, the State of California signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Comprised of three bills, AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, the SGMA provides a framework for long-term sustainable groundwater management across California and requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under the roadmap laid out by the legislation, local and regional authorities in medium and high priority groundwater basins have formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) that will oversee the preparation and implementation of a local Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The Project Site overlies the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin (Basin 8-005), which is designated as a High Priority Basin for declining water levels by the California Department of Water Resources. For reporting and groundwater management plan purposes, the San Jacinto Basin is separated into the Hemet/San Jacinto Management Plan Area and the West San Jacinto Management Plan (WSJMP) Area. The Project Site is located in the WSJMP Area for which EMWD is the designated GSA. The EMWD adopted the GSP for the WSJMP in 2021. The GSP includes a description of the Basin’s setting, groundwater conditions, water budgets, sustainable management criteria and goals, the monitoring network, and project and management actions to meet the goals of sustainable management of the Basin. Projects and management actions to achieve groundwater sustainability goals identified in the GSP include: (1) adjusting groundwater production as-needed; (2) imposing a replenishment or imported water purchase/pumping fee; (3) developing a groundwater allocation for the WSJMP Area; (4) assessing feasibility of recycled water delivery to private producers in the Menifee production area; (5) conducting additional investigations and/or technical studies; (6) constructing additional dedicated monitoring wells; (7) and determining the location and status of domestic wells in the WSJMP Area. As part of the WSJMP’s GSP, EMWD produces an Annual Report on the status of the groundwater sub-basins within the district based on monitoring of representative monitoring points distributed throughout the WSJMP Area for potential undesirable results associated with chronic lowering of groundwater levels, reduction of groundwater in storage, and land subsidence related to groundwater withdrawals. The Project’s proposed commercial land uses would not interfere or conflict with any of the identified projects and management actions of the GSP. In addition, the Project Site does not contain any monitoring wells utilized by EMWD for monitoring conducted pursuant to the GSP and the Project would not directly interfere with ongoing monitoring. Furthermore, neither Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 112 construction nor operation of the Project is anticipated to encounter groundwater, therefore, the extraction of groundwater would not be required. Additionally, as detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.10(b), the Project would not (1) interfere with groundwater recharge as the Project Site is unlikely to serve as a substantial source of existing groundwater recharge for the Basin and implementation of the Project; or (2) impede sustainable groundwater management as the Project’s water supply would be provided by EMWD, which actively manages the Basin to avoid overdraft and works with stakeholders to recharge the basins with imported water and limit native groundwater production when appropriate. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct sustainable groundwater management plans and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality The Project would result in temporary exposure of soils during construction within a highly urbanized area. Such projects can result in temporary increases in stormwater runoff and can introduce construction-related pollutants to runoff. However, the City is required to regulate stormwater quality at construction sites in accordance with the NPDES Storm Water Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the MS4 Permit. Under this County of Riverside permit, the City is required to ensure implementation of adequate runoff control BMPs at active construction sites to minimize off-site water quality impacts. Upon compliance with such regulations, the Project, in combination with related cumulative projects, would not create or contribute to a cumulatively considerable stormwater impact during construction. Similarly, in accordance with the MS4 Permit, the Project and all cumulative projects would be required to implement LID features to prevent water quality impacts during Project operations through required reduction in the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff. Therefore, development of the proposed Project, in combination with cumulative related projects, would be expected to incrementally reduce stormwater runoff from the area over time, which would incrementally improve the quality of such runoff and reduce the potential for erosion and downstream impacts, such as flooding. Through compliance with the NPDES and MS4 Permit and incorporation of operational LID BMPs, related projects would result in less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts. Because the proposed Project would also comply with the NPDES and MS4 Permit and include LID BMPs, the proposed Project’s contribution to potential cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Groundwater Hydrology and Water Quality Cumulative development has the potential to reduce groundwater supply through interference with recharge as a result of increased impervious surface area or through increased water supply demand.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 113 However, it is not expected that cumulative development would substantially interfere with groundwater recharge as most development is located on infill sites that currently contain varying amounts of impervious surface areas that drain to the public stormdrain system and, accordingly, do not currently contribute to groundwater recharge. Additionally, as the majority of the City is an urbanized area, any potential reduction in groundwater recharge due to the overall net change in impervious surfaces within the area encompassed by the related projects sites would be minimal in the context of the regional groundwater basin. With regard to water supply demands, as previously discussed, EMWD actively manages the Basin to avoid overdraft and works with stakeholders to recharge the basins with imported water and limit native groundwater production when appropriate. Growth associated with the development of related projects would be within levels anticipated for the City and, accordingly, would be accounted for in the City’s and water suppliers’ planning projections. Furthermore, EMWD would continue to be subject to the requirements of the SGMA to manage the groundwater in a sustainable way. With respect to groundwater quality, future growth in the City would be subject to SARWQCB requirements relating to groundwater quality. The Project would not expand any potential areas of contamination, increase the level of contamination, or cause regulatory water quality standard violations, as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15 and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Similarly, related projects would be required to comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations related to groundwater quality. Based on the above, the cumulative impact to groundwater hydrology and water quality would be less than significant and the Project’s impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 114
3.11 Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not include any features that would be expected to physically divide a community such as highways/roadways, storm channels, or utility transmission lines, and would not result in the closure of any bridges. Additionally, the Project would not cause any permanent street closures, block access to any surrounding land use, or cause any permanent change in the existing street grid system. Implementation of the Project would result in additional neighborhood-serving commercial land uses in an area developed with residential, public service, and other commercial lands uses. All proposed improvements would occur within the boundaries of the existing Project Site. A single-story commercial development currently exists immediately adjacent to the Project Site and therefore, the construction of new, single-story commercial buildings at the Site would not create a conflict of scale, intensity, or use of surroundings in a manner that would serve as an indirect physical division. As such, the Project would not physically divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact. Regionally, the Project Site is located within the planning area of SCAG, the federally designated metropolitan planning organization. SCAG is responsible for reviewing regionally significant local plans, projects, and programs for consistency with SCAG's adopted regional plans. As the Project proposes a 38,560-square-foot warehouse that is projected to employ 87 employees on a 6.01-acre, the Project does not meet the criteria for being regionally Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 115 significant pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206(b); therefore, no further analysis of SCAG consistency is required. The Project is also located within the regional planning area of the SCAQMD AQMP. As evaluated in Checklist Section 3.3, Air Quality, the Project is consistent with the AQMP, and no further analysis is required. Locally, the Project Site is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Menifee and is therefore subject to the Menifee General Plan and the MMC, including the MVSP. Consistency with these plans and regulations is discussed below. Only policies relevant and applicable to the Project are included. Menifee General Plan Pursuant to state law, a General Plan includes a statement of development policies and a diagram (or diagrams) and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals including the following elements: (1) land use, (2) circulation, (3) housing, (4) conservation, (5) open space, (6) noise, and (7) safety.84 The City’s General Plan contains all seven state-mandated elements, as well as two optional elements: the Community Design Element and the Economic Development Element. As applicable, the General Plan policies and elements are discussed under the applicable sections of this IS/MND. The Land Use Element has the broadest scope of all the General Plan Elements. The Land Use Element establishes the pattern of land use in the City and sets standards and guidelines to regulate development. The Project Site has a land use designation of “Specific Plan (SP)—Menifee Village.” Table 3.11-1, Project Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies, discusses the Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. Table 3.11-1, Project Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies Goals and Policies Analysis of Project Consistency Land Use Element General Land Use Goal LU-1: Land uses and building types that result in a community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a diversity of options of where they can live, work, shop, and recreate within Menifee.
Consistent. The Project would provide 38,560 square feet of commercial development where residents can work.
Policy LU-1.5: Support development and land use patterns, where appropriate, that reduce reliance on the automobile and capitalize on multimodal transportation opportunities.
Consistent. The Project Site is located adjacent to existing transit and bicycle infrastructure and would provide onsite bicycle racks. 84 California Government Code, Article 8, Section 65302.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 116 Table 3.11-1, Project Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies Goals and Policies Analysis of Project Consistency Utilities and Infrastructure Policy LU-3.4: Require that approval of new development be contingent upon the project’s ability to secure appropriate infrastructure services.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of this IS/MND, the Project would have sufficient utility infrastructure to serve the needs of the proposed land use. Airport Influence Areas Goal LU-4: Ensure development is consistent with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Consistent. The Project Site is located within Compatibility Zone E of the March Inland Port Airport. As detailed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this IS/MND, the Project would be consistent with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Policy LU-4.1: Ensure that land use decisions within the March Air Reserve Base and Perris Valley Airport areas of influence are consistent with applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, Comply with State law regarding projects subject to review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this IS/MND, the Project would be consistent with the Master Plan for the March Inland Port Airport and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Project would not conflict with state laws regarding development within airport influence areas. Policy LU-4.2: Ensure that development proposals within the March Air Reserve Base and Perris Valley Airport areas of influence fully comply with the permit procedures specified in Federal and State law, with the referral requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and with the conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration and ALUC, such as land use compatibility criteria, including density, intensity, and coverage standards. This requirement is in addition to all other City development review requirements.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this IS/MND, the Project would be consistent with the Master Plan for the March Inland Port Airport and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Project would not conflict with federal or state laws regarding development within airport influence areas.
Environmental Justice Policy EJ-3.2: Encourage safe, high quality, and affordable childcare services for residents and workers in or near housing, transportation, and employment centers.
Consistent. The Project would include a daycare facility for residents near existing housing and transportation.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 117 Table 3.11-1, Project Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies Goals and Policies Analysis of Project Consistency Economic Development Element Goal ED-1: A diverse and robust local economy capable of providing employment for all residents desiring to work in the City. Consistent. would provide 38,560 square feet of commercial development that would provide employment opportunities, which, as detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.14(a), are anticipated to be primarily filled with existing City residents. Policy ED-1.2: Diversify the local economy and create a balance of employment opportunities across skill and education levels, wages and salaries, and industries and occupations.
Consistent. The Project would provide employment opportunities in various commercial, retail, and childcare occupations.
Goal ED-2: A variety of retail shopping areas distributed strategically throughout the City and regionally retail, dining, and entertainment destinations in key locations with freeway access.
Consistent. The Project would develop a 38,560-square-foot shopping area, including retail and dining, at a Site less than one mile from an on/off-ramp to I-215. Policy ED-2.1: Promote retail development by locating needed goods and services in proximity to where residents live to improve quality of life, retain taxable spending by Menifee residents, and attract residents from outside the City to shop in Menifee. Locate businesses providing convenience goods and services in retail centers that are on arterials adjacent to neighborhood and communities throughout the City but not in rural residential areas. Encourage comparison goods businesses to locate in larger retail centers located on major arterials near freeway interchanges, because businesses that provide comparison goods tend to draw customers from larger areas.
Consistent. The Project would locate a 38,560-square-foot retail development, including businesses providing convenience goods and services on a Site located along an arterial and adjacent to existing neighborhood communities.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 118 Table 3.11-1, Project Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies Goals and Policies Analysis of Project Consistency Policy ED-2.2: Require regional retail districts to provide entertainment and dining in addition to retail sales and services to create destinations prepared to withstand e-commerce's increasing capture of retail spending. These districts should create a pedestrian-friendly human-scale atmosphere with street furniture, shading, and gathering spaces that enhance the experience of shopping and socializing. Local retail centers (primarily intended to serve Menifee residents) need not necessarily provide dining and entertainment but shall provide street furniture, shading, pedestrian-circulation, and gathering spaces that enhance the experience of shopping.
Consistent. The Project would provide a local retail center and would include shading, pedestrian-circulation, and gathering spaces to enhance the experience of shopping.
Source: City of Menifee, General Plan Goals and Policies. City of Menifee Municipal Code The City’s Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance are the primary tools use to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. Each of the General Plan land use designations is implemented by a correlating set of zoning designations described in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance provides more detailed direction related to development standards, permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses, and other regulations such as parking standards and sign regulations. Specific plans provide comprehensive development plans for designated areas of the City. The Project Site is zoned MVSP Zone PA 2-11: Neighborhood Commercial and is subject to the land use/development and planning standards established in the Menifee Village Specific Plan, which relies on County of Riverside Ordinance No. 348 as implemented by MMC Section 9.155.020. Permitted uses under the MVSP Zone PA 2-11 are established in the County of Riverside Ordinance No. 348, Section 17.27. As established therein, commercial, health service facilities, and child day care center land uses are permitted uses at the Project Site. Therefore, the Project’s proposed commercial land uses, which include retail, restaurant, medical office, and day care tenants would be consistent with the permitted land uses for the Site. The Project does not include and would not require variances, exceptions, or amendments with regard to the standards established for the Site and the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable requirements and limitations for site design and operation, including but not limited to: height, setbacks, landscaping, lighting, systems performance, parking, utilities, circulations, and signage. Furthermore, the Project’s design would be reviewed for consistency with all applicable land use Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 119 and zoning codes and standards and approved by the City during the development review process prior to the issuance of building and occupancy permits. Summary As detailed above, the Project would be substantially consistent with the goals, policies, and standards established for the Site in the City’s General Plan and the MMC, including the MVSP. Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan attempts to facilitate growth complimentary to adjacent land uses. Projects that can divide communities, such as new freeways, have long been recognized as an adverse effect on neighborhoods. Therefore, the General Plan attempts to avoid such development in areas of established communities. The Project would not divide established communities and would have no cumulative contribution to impacts on dividing established communities. In addition, as described above, the Project would be substantially consistent with the goals, policies, and standards established for the Site by the General Plan and the MMC, including the Menifee Village Specific Plan, and would not alter the Site’s underlying land use designation or zoning. Additional related projects within the City would also be evaluated for consistency with the General Plan and the MMC, including the Menifee Village Specific Plan (as applicable), at the time they are proposed and evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 120
3.12 Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. According to the California Geologic Energy Management Division, no oil, gas, geothermal, or other known wells are located on the Project Site or adjacent to the Site.85 As such, the Project would not have the potential to interfere with extraction of oil, gas, or geothermal resources. The California Department of Conservation classifies lands known to contain significant aggregate resources as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2. The Project Site is located within the boundaries of the Temescal Valley Production Area for aggregate resources; however, according to the California Department of Conservation’s Mineral Land Classification Maps, the Project Site is located in an area with an MRZ 3 designation, indicating areas containing mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.86 As such, there is no data indicating that significant state or regional mineral deposits are present at the Site and Project implementation is not anticipated to result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region and residents of the state. Therefore, no impact to state or regionally important mineral resources would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 85 California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Energy Management Division, Well Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/, accessed October 2025. 86 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Temescal Valley Production Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report 231, 2014, Plate 1.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 121 b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. Neither the Riverside County General Plan nor the Menifee General Plan designate mining sites in the City. In addition, the environmental analysis prepared for the City’s General Plan determined that build out that would occur under the General Plan would not cause a loss of availability of mining sites.87 Development of the Project would be in accordance with the assumptions of the underlying commercial land use designation evaluated in the General Plan. Furthermore, the Site is surrounded by existing development, primarily consisting of residential land uses. Accordingly, the Project Site would not serve as an appropriate mineral resource recovery area and would be incompatible with future mining operations. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to mineral resources is typically the boundaries of an existing mineral resource; however, as discussed above, no significant mineral resource exists within the boundaries of the Project Site or the vicinity. In addition, the analysis in this section demonstrates that the proposed Project would have no impact to mineral resources. Therefore, the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and would not result in a cumulative impact related to mineral resources. 87 City of Menifee, General Plan, Environmental Impact Report, 2013, page 5.11-5.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 122
3.13 Noise Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Noise and Vibration Characteristics Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound may be described in terms of level or amplitude (measured in decibels [dB]), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the amplitude of sound is the decibel. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale performs this compensation by discriminating against low and very high frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Several descriptors of noise (noise metrics) exist to help predict average community reactions to the adverse effects of environmental noise, including traffic-generated noise, on a community. These descriptors include the energy-equivalent noise level over a given period (Leq), the statistical sound level, the day–night average noise level (Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of three dB is barely noticeable, a change of five dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 123 Leq is a sound energy level averaged over a specified period (typically no less than 15 minutes for environmental studies). Leq is a single numerical value that represents the amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor during a time interval. For example, a 1-hour Leq measurement would represent the average amount of energy contained in all the noise that occurred in that hour. Leq is an effective noise descriptor because of its ability to assess the total time-varying effects of noise on sensitive receptors. Unlike the Leq metrics, Ldn and CNEL metrics always represent 24-hour periods, usually on an annualized basis. Ldn and CNEL also differ from Leq because they apply a time-weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when speech and sleep disturbance is of more concern). “Time weighted” refers to the fact that Ldn and CNEL penalize noise that occurs during certain sensitive periods. In the case of CNEL, noise occurring during the daytime (7:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m.) receives no penalty. Noise during the evening (7:00 p.m.–10:00 p.m.) is penalized by adding 5 dB, while nighttime (10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.) noise is penalized by adding 10 dB. Ldn differs from CNEL in that the daytime period is defined as 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m., thus eliminating the evening period. Ldn and CNEL are the predominant criteria used to measure roadway noise affecting residential receptors. These two metrics generally differ from one another by no more than 0.5 dB to 1 dB and, as such, are often treated as equivalent to one another. Vibration Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration can be a serious concern, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to noise, vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities, such as blasting, pile driving, and heavy earthmoving equipment. Several different methods are used to quantify vibration. Peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings and is usually measured in inches per second. The root mean square amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body and is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation is commonly used to measure root mean square. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. High levels of vibration may cause physical personal injury or damage to buildings. However, vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider vibration to be an annoyance that can affect concentration or disturb sleep. In addition, high levels of vibration can damage fragile buildings or interfere with equipment that is highly sensitive to vibration (e.g., electron microscopes). Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible vibration Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 124 are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If the roadway is smooth, the vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. Sensitive Receptors Noise sensitive land uses and receptors are buildings or areas where unwanted sound or increases in sound may have an adverse effect on people or land uses. The Menifee General Plan Noise Element defines noise-sensitive land uses to include schools, hospitals, rest homes, long-term care facilities, mental care facilities, residential uses, libraries, passive recreation uses, places of worship, and other land uses where an excessive amount of noise would interfere with normal activities. The Menifee Development Code (Sectio 9.305.060) defines a noise sensitive receptor to be “A living organism or land use that is identified as sensitive to noise in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan, including, but not limited to, residences, schools, hospitals, churches, rest homes, cemeteries, or public libraries.” The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family detached residential dwelling units located adjacent to the western, and southwestern boundary of the Project Site; the Callie Kirkpatrick Elementary School located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Project Site; and the single-family detached residential dwelling units located approximately 120 feet north of the Project Site, north of Newport Road. Existing Noise Level Measurements To assess the existing noise level environment, four short-term (15-minute) noise level measurements were taken at sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment at the closest sensitive receptors within the Project study area. The 15-Minute Noise Measurement Datasheet (included as Appendix I to this IS/MND) provides the location of the Project Site and the noise level measurement locations. To describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected on October 7, 2025 which represents a typical day on which residents go to work/school. The temperature during the measurements was 85 degrees Fahrenheit, with an 8 miles-per-hour wind, 33 percent humidity, and clear skies/sunshine. Measurement Procedure and Criteria The noise measurements were taken using the Larson Davis SoundTrack LxT2 sound level meter, which conforms to industry standards set forth in American National Standard Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1983 (R2006) – Specification for Sound Level Meters/Type 1, and is consistent with the requirements specified in LAMC Section 111.01(l) that the instruments be “Type S2A” standard instruments or better. This instrument was calibrated and operated according to the manufacturer’s written specifications. At the measurement sites, the microphone was placed at a height of approximately five feet above the ground. Locations of noise measurements in shown on Figure 3.13-1, Noise Measurement Locations, presented at the end of this section. Noise Measurement Results The results of the measurements are summarized in Table 3.13-1, Existing Ambient Noise Levels. The noise monitoring outputs are provided in Appendix I of this IS/MND. As shown in Table 3.13-1, the ambient Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 125 recorded noise levels range from 54.9 dBA Leq to 75.2 dBA Leq at the closest sensitive receptor locations in the Project vicinity. Table 3.13-1, Existing Ambient Noise Levels Noise Measurement Location Primary Noise Sources Noise Levels 1 Leq Lmax Lmin NM 1 – On the sidewalk, south of Newport Road, adjacent to the backyard of 28760 Avenue Marbella, west of the Project Site. Main noise sources are ground traffic and residential ambiance from human activity. Traffic noise from vehicles on Newport Road, Menifee Road and other surrounding roads. Other noise sources include bird song, pedestrians and occasional overhead air traffic, both helicopters and fixed wing. Leaf rustle due to 8mph to breeze.
72.0 81.4 46.1 NM 2 – On the sidewalk, north of Newport Road, adjacent to the backyards of the homes located on Via Marsala, approximately 120 feet north of the Project Site. 75.2 90.8 53.3 NM 3 – On the western side of Menifee Road, adjacent to a school building located at 30205 Menifee Rd, on the southeast corner of the Project Site. 64.1 76.0 49.7 NM 4 – On the sidewalk, adjacent to the front yards of the homes located at 28858 Somme Court and 28870 Somme Court, next to the southwestern boundary of the Project Site. 54.9 70.2 42.3 1 Noise measurements were taken on October 7, 2025, at each location for a duration of 15 minutes. See Appendix I of this IS/MND for noise measurement data. Applicable Noise Regulations and Standards Federal There are no federal noise regulations applicable to the Project. However, various federal agencies have established rules and guidelines addressing noise and vibration. For example, in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual,88 the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) offers guidance on the estimation of construction noise levels from a construction site. It also provides suggested thresholds that include no more than 80 dBA Leq (over an 8-hour daytime period) as received at a residential land use. Since the City does not provide a quantified construction noise limit, this analysis adopts the 80 dBA Leq 8-hour FTA guidance for quantitative construction noise impact assessment. With respect to vibration, the same above-mentioned manual from the FTA provides guidance for the assessment of vibration impacts on people (i.e., potential annoyance), building damage risk, and disruption of vibration-sensitive processes. Vibration impact criteria suggested by the FTA vary both with the frequency of vibration event occurrence and the sensitivity of the building or process that may be 88 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 123, September 2018.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 126 exposed to groundborne vibration. By way of example, a modern commercial building constructed from reinforced concrete or steel would have a vibration impact threshold of 0.5-inch/sec PPV, while a non-engineered timber or masonry structure more akin to a typical single-family or multifamily residence may have a more stringent 0.2-inch/sec PPV vibration impact criteria against which Project-attributed vibration due to construction could be assessed for the nearest such receptors in the surrounding community. Table 3.13-2, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities and provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions. Table 3.13-2, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second) at 25 feet Approximate Vibration Level (LV) at 25 feet 1 Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 0.644 (typical) 112 104 Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 0.170 typical 105 93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94 Hydromill (slurry wall) 0.008 in soil 0.017 in rock 66 75 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drill 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Table 7-4. September 2018 State Government Code Section 65302(g) California Government Code Section 65302(g) requires the preparation of a Noise Element in a community general plan, which shall identify and appraise the noise problems for the community. The Noise Element shall recognize the guidelines adopted by the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of Health Services and shall quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for major noise sources such as highways and freeways, primary arterials and major local streets, rail lines, airports and industrial plants. California General Plan Guidelines The California General Plan Guidelines, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), provides guidance for the acceptability of specific land use types within areas of specific noise Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 127 exposure. OPR guidelines are advisory in nature. Local jurisdictions, including the City, have the responsibility to set specific noise standards based on local conditions.89 Local City of Menifee General Plan Noise Element The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan includes goals and policies aimed at the control and abatement of environmental noise and protection of citizens from excessive exposure to noise. To protect City residents from excessive noise, the Noise Element contains the following goals related to the project: Goal N-1: Protect noise-sensitive land uses from excessive noise and vibration exposure. N-1.1: Assess the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development project applications. N-1.2: Require new projects to comply with the noise standards of local, regional, and state building code regulations, including but not limited to the city's Municipal Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Green Building Code, and subdivision and development codes. N-1.3: Require noise abatement measures to enforce compliance with any applicable regulatory mechanisms, including building codes and subdivision and zoning regulations, and ensure that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. N-1.4: Regulate the control of nuisances, such as residential party noise and barking dogs, through the City’s Municipal Code. N-1.7: Mitigate exterior and interior noises to the levels listed in the table below (Table 3.13-3, Stationary Source Noise Standards; refer to General Plan Table N-1, Stationary Source Noise Standards) to the extent feasible, for stationary sources adjacent to sensitive receptors: Table 3.13-3, City of Menifee Stationary Noise Standards Land Use (Residential) Interior Standards Exterior Standards 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 40 Leq (10-minute) 45 leq (10-minute) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 55 Leq (10-minute) 65 Leq (10-minute) Source: City of Menifee, City of Menifee General Plan, Table N-1, Stationary Source Noise Standards, adopted 2013; City of Menifee, City of Menifee Municipal Code, Section 9.210.060(D), Table 9.215.060-1, Stationary Source Noise Standards, current through Ordinance 2020-295, passed April 15, 2020. 89 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Appendix D Noise Element Guidelines, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_D_final.pdf, 2017.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 128 N-1.9: Limit the development of new noise-producing uses adjacent to noise-sensitive receptors and require that new noise-producing land be are designed with adequate noise abatement measures. N-1.13: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. N-1.17: Prevent the construction of new noise-sensitive land uses within airport noise impact zones. New residential land uses within the 65 dB CNEL contours of any public-use or military airports, as defined by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, shall be prohibited. N-1.20: Adhere to any applicable Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Land Use Commission land use compatibility criteria, including density, intensity, and coverage standards. City of Menifee Municipal Code 8.01.010 Hours of Construction: The Buildings and Construction Section of the City of Menifee Municipal Code permits any construction within one-fourth mile from an occupied residence that occurs between Monday and Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM. Construction on Sundays or nationally recognized holidays is not allowed unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. 9.215.060 Noise Control Regulations: B. General Exemptions. Sound emanating from the following sources are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 8. Property maintenance, including, but not limited to, the operation of lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc., provided such maintenance occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 10. Heating and air conditioning equipment in proper repair. C. Construction-Related Exemptions. Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in Section 9.215.060 of this chapter and may be characterized as construction-related, single event or continuous events exceptions. 1. Private construction projects, with or without a Building Permit, located one-quarter of a mile or more from an inhabited dwelling. 2. Private construction projects, with or without a building permit, located within one-quarter of a mile from an inhabited dwelling, shall be permitted Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., or specified in Section 8.01.010. There shall be no construction permitted on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 129
3. Construction-related exceptions. If construction occurs during off hours or exceeds noise thresholds, an application for a construction-related exception shall be made using the temporary use application provided by the Community Development Director in Chapter 9.105 of this Title. For construction activities on Sunday or nationally recognized holidays, Section 8.01.010 of this Code shall prevail. D. General Sound Level Standards. No person shall create any sound or allow the creation of any to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Table 9.215.060-1 (refer to Table 4.13-3, above). 9.215.070 Vibrations: All uses shall be so operated so as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average person while on or beyond the lot upon which the source is located or within an adjoining enclosed space if more than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains and temporary construction is exempted from this standard. a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise Short-term noise impacts could occur during construction activities from either the noise impacts created from the transport of workers and movement of construction materials to and from the project site, or from the noise generated onsite during: site preparation, grading, and building activities. No blasting or pile driving is anticipated as part of the proposed Project. Construction noise levels would vary significantly based upon the size and topographical features of the active construction zone, duration of the work day, and types of equipment employed, as indicated in Table 3.13-4, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels. Table 3.13-4, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FEET 60 70 80 90 100 110 EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES EARTH MOVING Compacters (Rollers) Front Loaders Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, Graders Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 130 Table 3.13-4, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FEET 60 70 80 90 100 110 Pavers Trucks MATERIAL HANDLING Concrete Mixers Concrete Pumps Cranes (Moveable) Cranes (Derrick) STATIONARY Pumps Generators Compressors IMPACT EQUIPMENT Pneumatic Wrenches Jack Hammers and Rock Drills Pile Drivers OTHER Vibrators Saws Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, NTID 300-1, 1971. As shown in Table 3.13-4, a typical construction day with an eight-hour duration would generate 84 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source, on average. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential, resulting in potential short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect in long-term ambient noise levels would be small when averaged over longer time. As previously shown by the ambient noise level measurements in Table 3.13-1, Existing Ambient Noise Levels, the Project vicinity is already exposed to a maximum noise level of Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 131
90.8 dBA. Using an average construction noise level of 84 dBA and a distance of 200 feet,90 the closest receptors in the Project vicinity would be exposed to an average construction noise level of 72 dBA, which would not exceed the 80 dBA Leq 8-hour FTA guidance. As discussed earlier, the Buildings and Construction Section of the City of Menifee Municipal Code permits any construction within one-fourth mile from an occupied residence that occurs between Monday through Saturday, except nationally recognized holidays, 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM. Construction on Sundays or nationally recognized holidays is not allowed unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. Construction noise is not exempt from the City’s stationary noise source standards. However, per Section 9.09.030 of the Municipal Noise Ordinance the property developer may apply for a construction exemption to the City’s Stationary Noise Ordinance Standards provided that: 1. Construction does not occur between the hours of 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM the following morning during the months of June through September; and 2. Construction does not occur between the hours of 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM the following morning during the months of October through May. Even with the exemption, construction on Sundays or nationally recognized holidays is not allowed unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer. The Project developer would be required to adhere to the above Municipal Ordinances. With adherence to regulatory requirements, the construction noise from the Project would be less than significant. Operational Noise On-Site Noise Parking Lot Areas and Drive-Through Speakers Sources of noise from parking lot areas are primarily from engine and tire noise, slamming of doors, and pedestrians. A parking lot is not considered a serene environment and the traffic noise from the adjacent roadways would provide a masking effect over the short-term, single event noise occurrences common to parking lots. Noise levels in parking lots can range from between 36 to 69 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the source.91 The closest sensitive receptors to the parking area would be the existing single-family residential uses located directly west and southwest of the Project Site and are located at least 50 feet from the areas of parking lot activity. Those residences are separated from the Project Site by an approximately five-foot-tall block wall which would attenuate the noise from the parking lot by approximately five dBA.92 Therefore, the 90 Distances to closest receptors were based on the acoustical center of the proposed construction activity. 91 Source: Gordon Bricken & Associates, 1996. Estimates are based on actual noise measurements taken at various parking lots. 92 FHWA Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook. Figure 13. Line-of-sight. Page 28. February 2000. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/38373, accessed October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 132 noise level from parking activities at the closest receptors would range between 31 to 64 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the source. As shown in Table 3.13-3 above, the daytime exterior noise standard is 65 dBA Leq (10 minute) for stationary sources; therefore, the noise level emanating from the parking area would not exceed the stationary noise standard at the closest receptors. Furthermore, the retail buildings with drive-through facilities and speaker boards are located on the northeastern corner of the Project Site, over 150 feet from the boundary of the closest sensitive receptors located on the opposite side of Newport Road; therefore, due to the distance, the masking effect of the existing traffic along Newport Road, the attenuation provided by an existing block wall that runs along the boundary line of the homes north of Newport Road, the drive-through speakers would be inaudible at the closest receptors. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment In order to determine the noise created by a rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit, a noise measurement was taken approximately 10 feet from a rooftop HVAC unit on an existing commercial building. The noise measurement recorded a noise level of 59.5 dBA (Leq,) while the HVAC unit was operational.93 Moving away from the rooftop HVAC unit, noise levels generated by the unit decreased to 53.5 dBA (Leq,) at 20 feet, to 47.5 dBA (Leq,) at 40 feet, and to 41.5 dBA (Leq,) at 80 feet. All rooftop HVAC units in operation on the Project Site would be located at a distance of 50 feet or more from the property lines of the nearest sensitive uses and all roof-mounted mechanical equipment would be screened from the ground elevation view by architectural elements such as parapets. As there would be no line-of-site to the HVAC systems, the attenuation afforded by the parapet would be five dBA. A distance of 50 feet, the HVAC noise level would be approximately 42 dBA or less. As such, the noise levels generated by operation of rooftop HVAC units by the Project would not exceed either the day time exterior stationary noise standard of 65 dBA Leq, or the nighttime stationary noise standard of 45 dBA Leq, at the closest sensitive receptor locations. Traffic Noise Future development generated by the Project would result in on adjacent roadways, thereby increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed land uses. As determined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in their Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, a doubling in roadway traffic volumes is required to generate any noticeable increase in roadway noise level average daily trips (ADT). The nearest roadway segments of the Project vicinity currently experience approximately 54,851 ADT to 56,746 ADT along Newport Road and approximately 16,170 ADT along Menifee Road. As such, the Project-generated trips would total 412 ADT to 817 ADT along Newport Road and approximately 725 ADT along Menifee Road; therefore, the addition of Project-related trips would be nominal and would not double existing traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments, and an increase in traffic 93 Michael Brandman Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Simi Valley McDonald’s, City of Simi Valley, California, 2009.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 133 noise along local roadways would be imperceptible. Project-related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion Based on the above, the Project would not cause the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The main concern associated with groundborne vibration is annoyance; however, in extreme cases, vibration can cause damage to buildings, particularly those that are old or otherwise fragile. Some common sources of groundborne vibration are trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving, and heavy earth-moving equipment. The primary source of groundborne vibration occurring as part of the Project is construction activity. Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. The construction of the Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The highest degree of groundborne vibration on-site would be generated during the site preparation and grading phases due to the use of a small dozer/excavator and tractor/loader/backhoe and during paving due to use of a roller. Based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data (see Table 3.13-2), vibration velocities from a dozer/excavator is estimated to be approximately 0.003-inch-per-second PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.94 The vibration level from a roller is estimated to be 0.210-inch-per-second PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.95 Groundborne vibration is typically attenuated over relatively short distances. The major concern with construction vibration is related to building damage. The closest buildings to the Site are Archibald’s Drive-Thru located east of the Project boundary line and the residential uses located just west of the Project boundary line. The thresholds for building damage risk are 0.3-inch/sec PPV for building Category II Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) and 0.2-inch/sec PPV for Category III Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. 94 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 95 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 134 Based on the distance of the area of activity to the building façade of the nearest building façade (both buildings’ facades are approximately 30 feet from the area of activity), and the known vibration levels of the highest vibration-generating piece of equipment anticipated for construction equipment (i.e., vibratory roller at 0.210-inch/sec PPV at 25 feet),96 vibration levels generated by construction of the Project would be approximately 0.04-inch/sec PPV at the building façade of the nearest building. Accordingly, vibration generated by construction of the Project would be below the more stringent FTA guidance standard of 0.2-inch/sec PPV for Category III Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Therefore, impacts related to groundborne vibration would not cause any building damage and is considered to be less than significant. As the Project consists of a proposed retail and day care center use, the Project does not include any sources of operational vibration; no operational impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures None required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Perris Valley Airport located approximately 6 miles to the northwest; however, the Site is not located within the influence area of the Perris Valley Airport, including the boundaries of noise contours. The Project Site is located within the Airport Influence Area of the March Inland Port Airport; however, the Site is not located within the boundaries of noise contours for the March Inland Port Airport and, accordingly, the Project would not expose people to a safety hazard or excessive noise levels associated with airports and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Noise Noise generated from the proposed Project would be limited to those typical of commercial uses. This type of noise is generally described as “nuisance noise.” Nuisance noise is intermittent or temporary noise from sources such as landscape maintenance equipment. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance 96 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 123, September 2018.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 135 would limit exposure to excessive nuisance noise. Similarly, related projects would be required to comply with the noise standards applicable to the jurisdictions in which they would be located. As stated above, the Project is not anticipated to generate a doubling of traffic volumes on any roadways within the Project vicinity; therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative traffic noise is also not anticipated to double the traffic volumes or cause a greater than three dBA increase on roadways in the Project vicinity. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Vibration Other foreseeable projects within the vicinity of the Project Site would not be close enough to create a combined excessive generation of groundborne vibrations. The Project would not exceed thresholds for structural damage nor will it be a source of operational vibration. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with excessive groundborne vibrations would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Project Site
Noise Measurement Locations
Source: Google Earth, 2025
Figure 3.13-1
NM1
NM2
NM3
NM4
NNoise Measurement LocationNM#
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 137
3.14 Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The SCAG functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, as well as incorporated cities within those counties. SCAG’s mandated responsibilities include developing plans and policies with respect to the region’s population growth, transportation programs, air quality, housing, and economic development. Specifically, SCAG is responsible for preparing an RTP/SCS in coordination with other state and local agencies. This document includes population, employment, and housing projections for the region and its 15 subregions. SCAG data is periodically updated to reflect changes in development activity and actions of local jurisdictions (e.g. zoning changes). SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 is the most recent update to their RTP/SCS and represents the most likely future growth scenario for the region. It includes projections of three major growth indicators (population, households, and employment) forecasted to the planning horizon year of 2050 at the regional, county, and local jurisdictional levels. Table 3.14-1, SCAG Data for City of Menifee, details the population, housing, and employment growth projections for the City contained within the Connect SoCal 2024 update to the RTP/SCS. These forecasts are used to help develop and analyze potential impacts stemming from the Project. Table 4.14-1, SCAG Data for City of Menifee Year Population Housing Employment 2019 101,600 34,000 17,300 2050 138,331 1 49,100 31,300 Total Change +36,731 +15,100 +14,000 1 SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 does not include population projections below the county level and recommends deriving jurisdictional population projections using the county-level population:housing ratio and applying it to jurisdictional Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 138 Table 4.14-1, SCAG Data for City of Menifee Year Population Housing Employment household projections. Riverside County’s population:housing ratio for 2050 is 2.8:1. Applying this ratio to the City’s 2050 housing projection (49,100 units) gives a corresponding population of 138,331 persons. Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2024, Demographics & Growth Forecast Appendix. a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped. As such, there are no population, housing, or employment associated with the current land use. Construction During construction, the Project would result in a temporary increase in employment at the Project Site. However, the construction industry differs from most other employment sectors in that there is no regular place of work with workers regularly commuting to job sites, and many workers are highly specialized and move from job site to job site as dictated by the demand for their specific skills. As a result, the employment pattern of construction workers in Southern California are such that it is not likely that they would permanently relocate their households as a result of their employment at the Project Site during construction. Accordingly, construction of the Project would not induce a substantial direct or indirect unplanned population growth. Operation The Project does not propose any housing units; therefore, there would be no direct population or housing growth resulting from operation of the Project. The Project would construct and operate a commercial development on the Project Site, which would result in direct employment growth, as well as potential indirect population growth should employees of the Project relocate from outside of the City. The Project is projected to generate approximately 87 new jobs.97 This direct increase in employment at the Project Site would not be a substantial increase in the City, representing 0.5 percent of the existing (2019) employment and 0.6 percent of the projected employment growth over the planning period previously shown above in Table 3.14-1. Employment opportunities can attract new residents to an area to fill such employment positions. However, given the type of jobs that the Project would create (general commercial/retail and daycare) and the current unemployment rates98 within the City (5.6 percent with 2,900 people in 97 Calculated as follows: 38,560 square-foot commercial development / 447 employees per square foot of retail/service space = 86.3 employees rounded up to 87. Source: Menifee Union School District, 2023/2024 Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, March 12, 2024, page 9. 98 California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html, accessed October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 139 the labor force who are unemployed) and Riverside County (6.3 percent with 75,600 people in the labor force who are unemployed), it is anticipated that the majority of the Project’s jobs would be filled by persons already residing in the City who would not relocate their households to work at the Project Site. As such, operation of the Project would not result in a substantial amount of indirect population increase. Furthermore, SCAG forecasts are based on buildout of land within the City based on current land use designations established in the planning documents of local jurisdictions. Because the Project would develop commercial development consistent with the underlying land use designations of the Site as contemplated in the General Plan and does not propose to change the land use designation of the Site, development of the Project has been assumed and accounted for in regional and local planning. Additionally, the Project Site is served by existing roadways and the Project would connect to existing utility infrastructure within Newport Road. Therefore, growth associated with the Project would not be considered unplanned and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped. As such, there are no existing people or housing that would be displaced by the project and no impact would occur as a result of implementation of the Project. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Project would result in less-than-significant impacts with regards to inducing substantial unplanned growth, and no impact to displacing housing or displacing people. Because the Project is a commercial project without residential uses, it would not contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts related to population and housing, and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 140
3.15 Public Services Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) who, in cooperation with CalFIRE, provide a full range of fire protection services within the City, including fires, rescues, traffic accidents, medical emergencies, requests for general public assistance, and fire prevention and education programs. RCFD currently operates 106 fire stations throughout Riverside County, four of which serve the City of Menifee as part of Battalion 13. The nearest station to the Project Site is Fire Station 76 (29950 Menifee Road), located approximately 0.2-mile northeast of the Project Site. The Project would be subject to current City and RCFD requirements for fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire flow, and equipment and firefighter access, as well as the California Fire Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 141 Code as adopted by Chapter 8.20 of the MMC, and all applicable National Fire Protection Associate standards and codes for systems and equipment. The Project’s Fire Plan is shown on Figure 3.15-1, Project Fire Plan, presented at the end of this section (Checklist Section 3.15). As shown on Figure 3.15-1, all drive aisles would have a vertical clearance of at least 13.5 feet; fire apparatus access roads would be designed to support fire apparatus loads, surfaced to provide all-weather driving capabilities, and would not exceed 14 percent (eight degrees) in grade or 2.5 percent (1.43 degrees) in cross-slope. Building envelopes would consist of stucco, corrugated metal, aluminum panels, synthetic siding, fired brick, or tile and all buildings and structures greater than 3,600 square feet are required to be sprinklered. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, fire flow tests would be conducted to ensure adequate fire flow to meet minimum requirements for commercial land uses pursuant to California Fire Code Appendix B, Table B105.1. Building 1 would have a fire flow not less than 562.5 gallons per minute (gpm), Building 3 would have a fire flow not less than 375 gpm, and Buildings 2, 4, and 5 would have a fie flow not less than 687.5 gpm; All buildings would have a flow duration of two hours minimum. Hydrants would be spaced and sited to ensure appropriate coverage of all areas of the Site. All proposed landscaping would meet requirements for defensible space and be routinely maintained and not allowed to become dry or overgrown such that it would create a fire hazard. Compliance with codes and standards would be ensured by the City’s Fire Marshal through the plan check process prior to the issuance of building permits. Implementation of the above fire protection and life safety features standardized in the California Building and Fire Codes, as implemented by the MMC, in addition to the VCFD and state fire safety requirements for defensible space, would limit the potential for fire at the Project Site, which would reduce the potential demand for fire services. In Addition, the Project Site is within a 4-minute driving distance from Fire Station 76, consistent with response time goals of RCFD. Due to the limited increase in demand that would be attributable to the Project, the availability of fire services within proximity to the Project Site, and required compliance with Fire Code standards, the construction of new or expansion of existing fire facilities would not be required as a result of the Project. Furthermore, the City would collect a one-time development impact fee in accordance with MMC Chapter 8.02, which is imposed on all new development to help pay its fair share of costs associated with upgrading RCFD fire facilities as needed. Payment of such fees would help fund the acquisition, design, and construction of new fire facilities and would minimize the Project’s operational impacts to fire protection services to the greatest extent practicable. The development of new fire protection facilities would be conducted under its own environmental review. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 142 Police Protection? Less than Significant Impact. Police protection in the City is provided by the Menifee Police Department (MPD) located at 29714 Haun Road, approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the Site. Staffed by approximately 93 sworn officers, 35 full-time professional staff, 4 part-time professional staff, 29 volunteers, 17 explorers, and three chaplains, MPD is comprised of the Investigations and Supports Services Division and the Operations Division. The Investigations and Support Services Division includes investigations, code enforcement, and support services such as records and evidence management and dispatch. Patrol Services falls under the Operations Division and consists of 46 Officers and six Community Service Officers who respond to service calls and carry out proactive patrols of six beat areas to prevent crime and apprehend individuals engaged in criminal activity. 99 The Project Site is located within the coverage area of Beat 3. The Project would develop a commercial use; therefore, there would be no anticipated increase in City residents that would represent an increase in demand for police services within the City and, as discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, it is anticipated that the majority of the Project’s jobs would be filled by persons already residing in the City. In addition, the City development review and building permit plan check processes include review by MPD to ensure incorporation of defensible space concepts and crime prevention strategies in site design. The incorporation of such concepts and strategies include strategic use of nighttime security lighting, maintenance of sightlines, and use of clearly identifiable points of entry. As such, the increased employment and activity at the Site would not be expected to increase the demand for police services such that existing staffing levels would be insufficient. As such, the construction of new or expansion of existing police facilities would not be required as a result of the Project. Furthermore, the City would collect a one-time development impact fee in accordance with MMC Chapter 8.02, which is imposed on all new development to help pay its fair share of costs associated with upgrading MPD fire facilities as needed. Payment of such fees would help fund the acquisition, design, and construction of new police facilities and would minimize the Project’s operational impacts to police protection services to the greatest extent practicable. The development of new police protection facilities would be conducted under its own environmental review. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Schools? No Impact. The Project Site is within the attendance boundaries of Callie Kirkpatrick Elementary School and Bell Mountain Middle School, part of the Menifee Union School District; and Liberty 99 Menifee Police Department, Annual Review, 2024.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 143 High School, part of the Perris Union High School District. The generation of students is related to the residential population residing within the service boundaries of schools and districts. The Project would develop commercial uses with no residential component. Therefore, the Project would not generate additional students within the boundaries of the serving school districts and the construction of new or expansion of existing school facilities would not be required as a result of the Project. Furthermore, pursuant to Senate Bill 50, the Project Applicant would be required to pay development fees for schools to the appropriate district(s) prior to the issuance of the Project’s building permit. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees is considered full and complete mitigation of Project-related school impacts. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities and no associated impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. Parks? No Impact. City-owned and -maintained parks and recreation facilities are under the purview of the Community Services Department; however, none are located within the vicinity of the Project Site. Within one mile of the Project Site are nine parks and recreational facilities operated and maintained by the Valley-Wide Recreation & Park District: Aldergate Park (28688 Aldergate Drive), Desert Green Pocket Park (29723 Painted Desert Drive), Grand Vista Park (29275 Grande Vista Avenue), La Paloma Park (30469 Menifee Road), Lago Vista Sports Park (29100 Holland Road), Menifee Community Center (30627 Menifee Road), Menifee Gymnasium (28545 La Piedra Road), Pepita Square (29658 Camino Pepita Drive), and Wheatfield Park (30627 Menifee Road). Although unlikely, employees of the Project may use nearby park facilities; however, such usage would likely occur during lunch breaks and would, accordingly, be brief. Such non-intensive use would not increase deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities and the construction of new or expansion of park facilities would not be required. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Other public facilities? No Impact. Other public facilities and services provided within the City include library services and City administrative services. Library services within the City are provided by the Riverside County Library System through the Menifee Branch (28798 La Piedra Road) located approximately 0.6-mile south of the Project Site, and the Sun City Branch (26982 Cherry Hills Boulevard) located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the Project Site. Although unlikely, it is possible the Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 144 employees of the Project would use the City’s library services; however, even if employees or visitors use the library, such usage would not overburden the current facilities. The demand for administrative services is typically tied to a City’s population. As detailed further in response to Checklist Question 3.14(a), it is anticipated that the majority of the Project’s jobs would be filled by persons already residing in the vicinity who would not relocate their households to work at the Project Site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that development of the Project would increase the current demand for City administrative services. As such, impacts to other public facilities in the area would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Related projects may require the construction of new or expansion of existing fire and police stations, schools, and other public facilities within each jurisdiction. However, the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction of new or expanded public facilities would be evaluated at each associated project level. Development and implementation of the Project does not include development of residential uses. As such, the Project would not significantly increase the need for fire or police protection services, would have no impact on schools or other public facilities. Therefore, the cumulative impact on public services would not be significant, and the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on public services would not be cumulatively considerable.
N
Project Fire Plan
Source: Bickel Group Architecture, 2025
Figure 3.15-1
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 146
3.16 Recreation Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.15(a), employees of the Project may use nearby park facilities; however, such usage would likely occur during lunch breaks and would, accordingly, be brief. Such non-intensive use would not increase deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities and the construction of new or expansion of park facilities would not be required. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project would include a daycare facility and associated playground. The playground would be privately owned and maintained by the daycare provider and would not be open or available to the public. Construction and operation of the playground is considered part of the Project, which as analyzed in this IS/MND, would not result in adverse physical effects on the environment. No unusual construction methods or operational procedures would be required for the daycare. As evaluated above in response to Checklist Question 3.16(a), the Project would not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. Therefore, the Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 147 Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreation facilities and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Project does not include development of residential uses and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Although employees of the Project may use the parks in the vicinity of the Project Site, it is anticipated that this would be a small number of people for brief periods of time. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to the deterioration of parks and no impact related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities and, as such, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to recreation would not be cumulatively considerable.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 148
3.17 Transportation Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? The following analysis of the potential transportation impacts of the Project is based, in part, on the information and conclusions contained within the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Menifee Boardwalk Project, Menifee (VMT Assessment),100 prepared for the Project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers. The VMT Assessment was prepared in accordance with the assumptions, methodologies, and procedures outlined in the City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled,101 and utilizing trip generation rates derived from the Manual of Trip Generation 11th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The VMT Assessment is included as Appendix J to this IS/MND and its findings, conclusions, and recommendations are incorporated by reference herein. 100 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Proposed Menifee Boardwalk Project, Menifee, February 27, 2026. 101 City of Menifee, City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled, updated: January 2022.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 149 a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Transit The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) operates Route 74 within the vicinity of the Project Site. Route 74 traverses the Cities of Hemet, Winchester, Menifee, and Sun City and provides service between the Hemet Valley Mall, West Valley High School, Menifee Post Office, Mt. San Jacinto College Menifee, Menifee Community Center and Park, Menifee Countryside marketplace, Menifee Valley Medical Center, and Sun City Library. The nearest bus stop to the Project Site is located approximately 450 feet to the east of the Site. As detailed in Checklist Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the Project would not induce significant population growth and is consistent with the anticipated land use for the Site. Accordingly, it is anticipated that existing transit service in the Project area would be able to adequately accommodate the increase in Project-generated transit trips. In addition, neither construction nor operation of the Project would require removal or relocation of any existing bus stops or other transit infrastructure. Roadway Adjacent to the Project Site, Newport Road is a six-lane, divided roadway oriented in the east-west direction, while Menifee Road is a five-lane, divided roadway south of its intersection with Newport Road and a four-lane, divided roadway north of Newport Road, oriented in the north-south direction. On-street parking is not permitted along Newport Road or Menifee Road in the vicinity of the Site and the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. The Newport Road/Menifee Road intersection is traffic-signal-controlled. The Circulation Element identifies Newport Road as an Urban Arterial and Menifee Road as an Arterial. On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law, which initiated a process to change transportation impact analyses completed in support of CEQA documentation. SB 743 eliminates level of service (LOS) as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA and provides a new performance metric, vehicle miles travelled (VMT). A VMT-based analysis is thus provided below, in Response 2.17(b). However, the City’s Engineering Department LOS Traffic Study Guidelines (LOS Guidelines), dated October 2020, identifies LOS as the basis for determining significant transportation impacts within the City and the General Plan has established a minimum acceptable performance standard of LOS D for designated intersections (Circulation Element Policy C-1.2). Based on background traffic calculations, the Project would have the potential to create a deficiency within the roadway system as a result of increased traffic and identified potential improvements to address these deficiencies. Therefore, per the City’s LOS Guidelines, the Project would be required to pay a fair share contribution (mitigation measure TRA-1) towards these improvements in order to reduce Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 150 the impact to a less than significant level. The LOS calculations and estimated fair share contribution for the Project would be confirmed and approved by the City’s Engineer as part of the City’s standard review process prior to the issuance of building permits. Although the approach to evaluating transportation impacts has shifted to focus on encouraging active transportation and transit while limiting VMT, an important aspect of this analysis is to ensure that the street grid network functions well and allows for efficient movement of vehicles. Thus, Table 3.17-1, Project Consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element, presents an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with both these vehicular and non-vehicular aspects of the General Plan Circulation Element. Table 3.17-1, Project Consistency with General Plan Circulation Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Project Consistency Goal C-1: A roadway network that meets the circulation needs of all residents, employees, and visitors to the City of Menifee.
Consistent. The Project Site is located southwest of the intersection of Newport Road and Menifee Road in the central eastern portion of the City. The Project would provide all required circulatory improvements within and adjacent to the Site. In addition, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project would be required to pay its fair share contributions as calculated and approved by the City’s Engineering Department consistent with the requirements of the City’s LOS Guidelines. Policy C-1.1: Require roadways to: o Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards. o Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users. o Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. o Be maintained in accordance with best practices.
Consistent. The Project includes circulation improvements for vehicles, including alternative fuel vehicles, and active transportation methods, such as bicycles and pedestrians. The Project’s design would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local design and safety standards and would be compatible with the surrounding streetscape and land uses. All circulation improvements would be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer for consistency with approved cross-sections and design standards. Policy C-1.2: Require development to mitigate its traffic impacts and achieve a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) D or better at intersections, except at constrained intersections at close proximity to the I-215 where LOS E may be permitted.
Consistent. The Project’s Traffic Study indicates that the Project can achieve LOS D or better at local area intersections and roadways through fair share contributions toward planned improvements. The Project’s final improvements and fair share contribution would be confirmed and approved by the City Engineer as part of the City’s standard plan check prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy C-1.3: Work with Caltrans, RCTC, and others to identify, fund, and implement Consistent. The Project would fully fund all proposed onsite and adjacent improvements that serve the Project and would contribute its fair share Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 151 Table 3.17-1, Project Consistency with General Plan Circulation Element Goals and Policies Analysis of Project Consistency needed improvements to roadways identified in the citywide roadway network. contributions to fund future improvements to the roadway network as approved by the City. Policy C-1.4: Promote development of local street patterns that unify neighborhoods and work with neighboring jurisdictions to provide compatible roadway linkages at the city limits.
Not Applicable. The Project would not alter existing local street patterns or linkages.
Policy C-1.5: Minimize idling times and vehicle miles traveled to conserve resources, protect air quality, and limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Consistent. As discussed below in response to Checklist Question 3.17(b), the Project would have less-than-significant impacts with regard to VMT. Goal C-2: A bikeway and community pedestrian network that facilitates and encourages nonmotorized travel throughout the City of Menifee.
Consistent. The Project would facilitate non-motorized travel through the inclusion of bike parking on a site located along a Class II Bike Lane and through pedestrian improvements, including landscaping and design features consistent with applicable safety and ADA requirements. Policy C-2.1: Require on- and off-street pathways to: o Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards. o Meet the needs of multiple types of users (families, commuters, recreational beginners, exercise experts) and meet ADA standards and guidelines. o Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. o Be maintained in accordance with best practices.
Consistent. The Project includes on- and adjacent improvements to enhance the pedestrian experience, including landscaping. The Project’s design would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local design and safety standards and would be compatible with the surrounding streetscape and land uses. All pedestrian circulation improvements would be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer for consistency with approved ADA regulations and design standards.
Source: City of Menifee, General Plan Circulation Element Goals and Policies. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities In the vicinity of the Site, existing Class II Community On-Street Bike Lanes are located along both sides Menifee Road. Pedestrian facilities currently existing on both sides of Newport Road and Menifee Road. Bicycle circulation would be provided via the existing bike lanes as well as adjacent roadways and sidewalks. Pedestrian circulation would be provided via existing sidewalks. All pedestrian areas within the Project Site would meet ADA requirements and adhere to City design guidelines. In addition, as detailed in Checklist Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the Project would not induce significant population growth and is consistent with the anticipated land use for the Site.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 152 Accordingly, it is anticipated that existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Project area would be able to adequately accommodate the increase in Project-generated use. Summary The Project would not alter the existing roadway network or hinder the City’s ability to emphasize a diversity of transportation modes or choices. The Project would not include improvements that would extend into the public right-of-way; interfere with existing public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities; or impede the construction of new or the expansion of such existing facilities in the future. As discussed above, the Project’s impacts on the transit system and bicycle and pedestrian facilities would not be significant; however, the Project’s impacts on the roadway system would require payment of fair share contributions to improvements recommended for three intersections and two roadway segments (mitigation measure TRA-1). With implementation of mitigation measure TRA-1, the Project would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the performance of the circulation system, including public transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures TRA-1 Fair Share Contribution. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Project Applicant shall pay the Project’s fair share amount consistent with the City of Menifee’s LOS Traffic Study Guidelines subject to final review and approval by the City Engineer and in conjunction with all other applicable transportation fees (including, but not limited to, the City’s development impact fees). b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. Senate Bill (SB) 743 amended CEQA in 2013 with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” SB 743 required OPR to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. For land use development projects, OPR identified VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as new metrics for transportation analysis. Government Code Section 15064.3 (“Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts”), subsection (b) (“Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts”), part (4) (“Methodology”) gives a lead agency the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT. Accordingly, the City adopted the City of Menifee Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT Guidelines) in January 2022. Pursuant to the City’s adopted VMT Guidelines, a land use project is assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if it: (1) is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) and meets specific criteria based on land use and other factors; (2) is located within a low VMT-generating area; or (3) is a local-serving project under 50,000 square feet.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 153 The VMT Assessment was prepared consistent with the City’s Analysis Guidelines for VMT to determine if the Project would be assumed to have a less-than-significant impact pursuant to any of the above screening criteria. As detailed in the VMT Assessment, included as Appendix J to this IS/MND, the Project Site is not located within a TPA and would not be presumed to have less-than-significant impacts pursuant to Criterion 1. To determine if the Site is located within a low VMT-generating area pursuant to Criterion 2, the City uses the Western Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT Screening Tool. Based on the WRCOG Screening Tool, the jurisdictional average VMT per service population is 33.5 VMT per service population while the Project Site’s Traffic Analysis Zone ([TAZ] #1123) VMT per service population is 31.2 VMT per service population. Therefore, Criterion 2 is satisfied. In addition, because the Project would consist of 28,650 square-feet of retail and 10,000 square-feet of day care center use, the Project satisfies Criterion 3. Therefore, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT per the City’s VMT Guidelines. Mitigation Measures None required. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be subject to the City’s standard design guidelines to regulate design through the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to ensure compatible use. Vehicular access to the proposed Project will be provided via one right-turn in/right-turn out only unsignalized driveway located along Newport Road and via one existing shared right-turn in/right-turn out only unsignalized driveway located along Menifee Road. Table 3.17-12, Peak Hour Levels of Service—Project Driveways, presents the calculated the Project’s effects on driveway operations in the 2027 opening year. There would be no changes to the existing access or off-site circulation on City roads. The developer would be responsible for onsite circulation improvements (driveways and internal drive aisles). These onsite improvements would be designed in accordance with all applicable design standards set forth by the City, which were established to ensure safe and efficient vehicular circulation. Furthermore, the on-site circulation layout of the proposed Project on an overall basis is adequate. Curb return radii are generally adequate for small service/delivery trucks, trash trucks, and emergency vehicles and would be confirmed as part of standard plan check and site inspection procedures. Based on the above, impacts associated with hazardous design features or incompatible land uses would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 154 d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. During construction, it is expected that Project construction activities and staging areas would remain entirely onsite and would not require temporary street and/or lane closure(s). Mitigation measure TRA-2 would further ensure that adequate measures for safety and vehicular movements would be maintained in the event that temporary traffic diversion measures are required to accommodate construction activities. With regards to operation, the Project would not cause permanent alterations to offsite vehicular circulation routes and patterns, impede public access, or travel upon public rights-of-way. The Project would not include the installation of barriers (e.g. perimeter fencing, fixed bollards, etc.) that could impede emergency access within the vicinity of the Project Site. Furthermore, as described above in response to Checklist Question 3.17(c), onsite improvements would be designed in accordance with all applicable design standards for safe and efficient vehicular circulation set forth by the City and were determined to be generally adequate for small service/delivery trucks, trash trucks, and emergency vehicles. Accordingly, impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures TRA-2 Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan (Construction TMP) for approval by the City of Menifee Traffic Engineer. The Construction TMP shall include measures to minimize potential safety impacts during the short-term construction process if partial or full lane closures are required. The Construction TMP shall specify that on direction of travel in each direction on adjacent roadways must always be maintained during Project construction activities. If full lane closures are required and one direction of travel in each direction cannot be maintained, the Construction TMP shall identify planned detours. The Construction TMP shall include measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and use of construction flag-person(s) to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. The Construction TMP shall in incorporated into Project specifications for verification prior to final plan approval. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Plan, Program, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing Circulation As described above, the project would not result in significant impacts from conflicts with regional and local transportation plans or policies. As concluded above, with payment of a fair share contribution, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to the roadway system. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to a program, plan, ordinance, or policy related to addressing the circulation system would be less than significant with mitigation.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 155 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) The Project does not require a project-level VMT analysis; therefore, the Project meets the City’s trip generation screening criterion and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact related to VMT. Hazardous Design Features As discussed above, there would be no permanent changes to off-site circulation on City roads. The developer would be responsible for onsite circulation improvements (driveways and internal drive aisles) and frontage improvements (e.g., sidewalks and landscape areas). These onsite and adjacent improvements would be designed in accordance with all applicable design standards set forth by the City. Because the impacts related to Project access points and circulation are site-specific, and would be less than significant, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts with respect to hazardous design features. Emergency Access As analyzed above, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and Project impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. As with the proposed Project, driveways and/or circulation modifications proposed in the surrounding area would comply with applicable local, regional, state, and/or federal requirements related to emergency access and evacuation plans. Further, because modifications to access are largely confined to a project site, project-specific emergency access impacts would likely not impact other cumulative projects. Therefore, the Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts to emergency access would be less than significant.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 156
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
The following analysis of the potential tribal cultural resources impacts of the Project is based on the information and conclusions contained within the Cultural Report prepared for the Project, previously detailed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, and attached as Appendix D to this IS/MND.102 Background research conducted to inform this analysis included searches of cultural resources database records, 102 South Environmental, Phase I Cultural Resource Technical Report, City of Menifee, Riverside County, California, October 2025.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 157 including the NAHC’s SLF database; coordination with Native American Tribes traditionally affiliated with the area; and a pedestrian survey, which are summarized in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND, no cultural resources were identified within the Project Site as a result of the CHRIS records search or pedestrian survey by a qualified archaeologist. Ground visibility was good (70-90 percent) during the survey. Additionally, the only resource recorded within 0.5-mile was associated with historic period agriculture. Therefore, no cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) were identified within the Project Site. In addition, no tribal cultural resources were identified during consultation with the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians that the City, as lead agency, has determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 in consideration of potential significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. However, as discussed in Checklist Section 3.5(b), the NAHC responded with a positive SLF search and the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians stated that the Site is within their traditional territory and, therefore, within a culturally sensitive area. Because no development has occurred at the Site, the possibility exists that deeper lying, previously unknown tribal cultural resources exist that ground-disturbing activities during construction could encounter. Mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be required to ensure appropriate protection and treatment of cultural resources that may qualify as historical resources in the event of their inadvertent discovery during ground-disturbance at the Site. Protection and treatment efforts recommended are consistent with applicable state and local regulatory requirements and recommendations, including CEQA statutes, CRHR evaluation criteria, AB 52, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element Policies OCS-5.1 and OCS-5.3 through OCS-5.6, which have been adopted and implemented to prevent and reduce effects on cultural Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 158 resources, including those which may qualify as historical resources. Accordingly, impacts to tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources or determined by the City to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures See mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 under Checklist Question 3.5(a) above. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Project and related projects would comply with AB 52 in which the lead agency for each project would be required to notice tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the related project sites if the tribe has submitted a written request to be notified. Due to being locally specific, each related project would need to conduct a Sacred Lands File search and be evaluated within its own site-specific context. The Project would not adversely affect known tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any potential cumulative impacts, and cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be less than significant.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 159
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The following analysis of impacts to utilities and service systems that could potentially occur as a result of construction or operation of the Project is based, in part, on the Project’s Utility Plan and “will serve” letters issued for the Project by utility providers and agencies. The Utility Plan is presented in Figure 3.19-1, Project Utility Plan, included at the end of this Checklist Section, and agency “will serve” letters are included as Appendix K to this IS/MND.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 160 a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Water Facilities EMWD has issued a conditional “will serve” letter indicating their willingness to provide water services to the Project in accordance with EMWD rules and regulations.103 As detailed below in response to Checklist Question 3.19(b), existing and planned water supplies would be adequate to meet the Project’s demands during construction and operation. Therefore, no new or expanded water supply infrastructure (e.g., reservoirs, treatment/filtration plants, or pump stations) would be required beyond what has already been planned for and the environmental impacts of evaluated as part of long-range planning efforts of water suppliers and wholesalers. However, the Project would require the construction of new onsite Project-serving water delivery infrastructure for domestic, irrigation, and fire flow, such as service laterals and meters, as well as connections to existing offsite water mains. The Project would connect to an existing 21-inch water main beneath Newport Road. When analyzing the capacity of existing water mains and offsite infrastructure to serve a project, although domestic water demand would be the main contributor to water demand in the long term, fire flow demand has a much greater instantaneous impact on infrastructure and, therefore, is the primary means for analyzing infrastructure capacity of the local delivery system. The water demand of a project and the adequacy of existing water supply lines and fire hydrants are evaluated and managed by EMWD. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project would be required to show adequate fire flow to meet minimum standards for commercial uses pursuant to California Fire Code Appendix B and table B105.1, as enforced through MMC Section 8.20.180. If water main or other offsite local delivery infrastructure upgrades are required to meet flow requirements, the Project Applicant would be required to pay for such upgrades, which would be constructed by either the Project Applicant or the City. Impacts from such construction activities are part of typical site development and would not be substantial based on their temporary and localized nature both on-site and within existing rights-of-way or public easements that have been previously disturbed. The Project would be required to coordinate connections to the public water main with EMWD, which would avoid impacts related to service disruptions; and the Project’s plans for onsite water delivery infrastructure, including the proposed sprinkler system, would be subject to the approval of the City and EMWD, which would avoid impacts related to pressure or capacity deficiencies. 103 Eastern Municipal Water District, Development Services Department, Will Serve Letter from David Kanigowski, Senior Engineering Technician, SAN 53—WS 2024-1006—APN: 364-030-016, September 6, 2024.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 161 All onsite water infrastructure would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the 2022 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes; and the 2022 California Fire Code, or the current edition at the time of permitting. The design and installation of onsite water infrastructure is regulated by Chapter 8.16 of the MMC. The Project would be subject to current MFD and RCFD requirements for fire flow and hydrant spacing/coverage and access, enforced by the MMC Chapter 8.20. Sprinkler systems would be also compliant with National Fire Protection Association 13 standards. Compliance with all requirements and standards would be ensured through the plan check process prior to the issuance of building permits. Based on the above, the Project would not require the relocation or expansion of existing water treatment or water main infrastructure, and the construction of new onsite hydrants and water conveyance lines for domestic and fire flow would not result in significant environmental effects. Further, the Project would be required to pay standard water connection fees. Water suppliers use these fees, at least in part, to fund projects and programs necessary to meet their regulatory obligation with respect to treatment requirements, treatment capacity, and supply reliability. Accordingly, impacts related to the construction or relocation of water facilities would be less than significant. Wastewater Treatment Facilities EMWD has issued a conditional “will serve” letter indicating their willingness to provide wastewater services to the Project in accordance with EMWD rules and regulations.104 EMWD owns and operates five regional water reclamation facilities (RWRF), including the Perris Valley RWRF, which treats wastewater collected within the City. As detailed below in response to Checklist Question 3.19(c), the Perris Valley RWRF has adequate capacity to serve the Project. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that the Project would require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. The Project would connect to an existing 10-inch sewer main within Newport Road. Because the Project Site is located in an urbanized, developed part of the City adjacent to existing public wastewater infrastructure currently serving the surrounding residential and commercial developments, it is not anticipated that upgrades to the capacity of the existing sewer main would be required. However, should the City determine during their review of the Project’s wastewater system plans that upgrades to the sewer main(s) or service lateral that would serve the Project is necessary to accommodate the anticipated wastewater flows of the Project, the Applicant would be required to furnish, install, and offer for dedication to the City all necessary local system improvements as required by the Public Works Department. Improvements would be designed and constructed according to the utility plans, which are subject to approval and acceptance by the City during standard plan check prior to issuance of a building permit. Operation of the Project would require installation of new onsite wastewater collection lines to serve the new buildings. Activities associated with the installation of wastewater conveyance lines 104 Eastern Municipal Water District, Development Services Department, Will Serve Letter from David Kanigowski, Senior Engineering Technician, SAN 53—WS 2024-1006—APN: 364-030-016, September 6, 2024.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 162 would be limited to trenching and minor offsite work associated with installation of a service lateral and connection to the existing main. Impacts from such construction activities are part of typical site development and would not be substantial based on their temporary and localized nature both on-site and within existing rights-of-way or public easements that have been previously disturbed. In addition, as part of plan check prior to the issuance of the Project’s building permit, the Applicant would be required to submit a wastewater permit application that would include the proposed wastewater system plans for review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, as well as pay a wastewater service connection charge. Based on the above, the Project would not require the relocation or expansion of existing wastewater treatment or sewer main infrastructure, and the construction of new onsite wastewater collection lines would not result in significant environmental effects. Accordingly, impacts related to the construction or relocation of wastewater facilities would be less than significant. Stormwater Drainage Facilities Open drainage channels and underground storm drains larger than 36 inches diameter are operated and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District while smaller underground storm drains are operated and maintained by the City’s Public Works Department. There is an existing 54-inch reinforced concrete storm drain pipe in Newport Road. The Project would install onsite stormwater collection infrastructure to convey stormwater to an underground detention basin and MWS prior to discharge into the existing storm drain in Newport Road. Onsite stormwater collection and treatment infrastructure was designed to detain and treat stormwater prior to discharge in the existing storm drain system and, as detailed in Checklist Section 3.10, would have less-than-significant impacts. In addition, and as detailed in Checklist Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would not alter the existing overall drainage pattern of the Site or area and would not substantially increase the volume or speed of runoff from the Site as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, because the capacity of the stormwater drainage system within Newport Road adequately handles the Site’s runoff under existing conditions, it is anticipated that it would sufficiently handle the Site’s runoff under Project conditions. As such, the Project would not be expected to require expansion or the construction of new offsite facilities. However, should the City determine improvements to the stormwater drainage system are necessary during the normal permit review process, the Applicant would be responsible for the improvements. Impacts from such construction activities are part of typical site development and would not likely be substantial based on their temporary and localized nature both onsite and within existing rights-of-way or public easements that have been previously disturbed. Based on the above, the Project would not require the expansion of or construction of new offsite stormwater drainage facilities and the construction of new onsite stormwater drainage facilities would not result in significant environmental effects.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 163 Electric Power and Natural Gas Facilities Electrical power would be provided to the Project by SCE and natural gas would be provided by SoCalGas. As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.6(a), the estimated electrical and natural gas demands of the Project during operation would represent insignificant percentages of the projected demands for the respective service areas for which the providers have identified sufficient sources of supplies. SCE and SoCalGas routinely plan capacity additions and changes at existing and new facilities as needed to meet demands. The Project is consistent with the underlying land use and zoning designations for the Site and has, therefore, been included in the assumptions for growth projections utilized by utility providers in preparation of long-term planning. Furthermore, the Project’s demands for electricity and natural gas would be reduced pursuant to statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in CCR Title 24, Part 6. CCR Title 24, Part 11, contains additional energy measures that are applicable to the proposed Project under CALGreen. For these reasons, the Project is not expected to require substantial amounts of energy such that new or expanded electrical infrastructure related to supply generation or regional distribution would be required. However, the Project would require the installation of new onsite electrical and natural gas distribution facilities and connection to the offsite electrical and natural gas supply systems. All utility installation and connection to the existing system would be done in coordination and under the approval of the City and the respective utility providers. Impacts from such construction activities are part of typical site development and would not be substantial based on their temporary and localized nature both onsite and within existing rights-of-way or public easements that have been previously disturbed. Based on the above, the construction of new onsite electric power and natural gas distribution facilities would not result in significant environmental effects and the expansion of offsite electric power or natural gas sources or regional distribution infrastructure would not be required. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. Telecommunications Facilities Because the Project Site is located in a developed area, existing telecommunications facilities and access to regional telecommunications infrastructure currently exists in the vicinity of the Site. Connections to existing infrastructure would be made during construction and are considered part of this Project. As such, impacts of such connections have been analyzed for their effects in this IS/MND. As demonstrated throughout this document, significant environmental impacts would not result from the proposed Project. During Project operation, existing local telecommunication maintenance and operations groups would continue to ensure that telecommunication services reach the Project Site and the City. Furthermore, telecommunication services are provided by private companies, the selection of which is at the discretion of the Applicant and/or the successor on an ongoing basis. Upgrades to existing telecommunication facilities and construction of new facilities to meet the demand of users is determined by Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 164 providers and is subject to its own environmental review. Accordingly, impacts related to the construction or relocation of telecommunication facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. Currently, EMWD has four sources of water supply: (1) potable groundwater; (2) desalinated groundwater; (3) recycled water; and (4) water imported from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. According to EMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), imported water accounts for between 50 to 60 percent of their total water supply, while local potable groundwater, desalinated groundwater, and recycled water account for the rest.105 Water suppliers, such as EMWD, are required by State Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 to conduct long-term water resources planning to identify potential water shortages based on a comparison of anticipated supplies available and projected demands. Demographic growth is a major driver of current and future water demand. Accordingly, regional growth forecasts prepared by designated planning agencies (e.g., SCAG’s Connect SoCal) serve as the core assumptions for the demand forecasts contained within water purveyors’ management plans. As detailed in Checklist Section 3.14, Population and Housing, of this IS/MND, the jobs that would be generated by the Project would be consistent with the employment growth projections prepared by SCAG for the City. Accordingly, the water demand associated with buildout of the Site consistent with General Plan and zoning designations is part of the total growth expected for the City and has been accounted for within water supply projections. The Project would be consistent with underlying General Plan and zoning designations of the Site. As such, the Project’s water demand has been accounted for in EMWD’s demand projections. Through long-term water resource planning, EMWD predicts that they will be capable of providing adequate water supplies to meet existing and projected future demands for water within their service area during normal, single dry year, and five consecutive year drought scenarios through 2045.106 As such, the project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 105 Eastern Municipal Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 1, 2021, page 6-4. 106 Eastern Municipal Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 1, 20215, page 7-7.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 165 c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Checklist Question 3.19(a), the City uses the Perris Valley RWRF for wastewater treatment. The Perris Valley RWRF has a current capacity to treat 22 million gallons of wastewater per day and currently treats an average of 15.5 million gallons.107 According to the CalEEMod outputs prepared for the Project (see Appendix B), the Project’s indoor water demand would be approximately 2.6 million gallons per year, or approximately 6,989 gallons per day. Assuming that 100 percent of the Project’s indoor water demand would subsequently be treated as wastewater, the Project’s wastewater generation would represent a nominal increase of 0.05 percent over current wastewater received and would account for 0.1 percent of the remaining daily capacity at the Perris Valley RWRF. As such, the Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to existing commitments. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Mitigation Measures None required. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. Reduction goals for solid waste, construction and demolition debris, and organic waste are codified pursuant to several state and local laws and regulations: • Solid Waste: Under state law (AB 939, as amended by AB 341), jurisdictions are currently required to meet a solid waste diversion goal of 75 percent. • Construction and Demolition Debris: As required by Senate Bill (SB) 1374 (singed in 2002), the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) adopted a model ordinance for diverting 50 to 75 percent of all construction and demolition waste from landfills on March 16, 2004.108 In addition, current CALGreen code standards require construction projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Consistent with SB 1374 and CALGreen requirements, Section 6.40.050 of the MMC requires that construction and/or demolition projects in the City divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfill disposal through recycling, reuse, and diversion programs. In addition, consistent with mandatory requirements of the 2022 CALGreen standards, Section 107 Eastern Municipal Water District, Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility, https://content.emwd.org/sites/default/files/migrate-documents/pvrwrffactsheet.pdf, accessed October 2025. 108 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Senate Bill 1374 (2002), August 24, 2018.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 166
6.40.060 of the MMC requires that every applicant submit a waste reduction and recycling plan as a requirement of the building or demolition permit process. • Recycling: AB 341 requires that all commercial businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. In addition, AB 1327, as amended, requires each local jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance requiring qualifying land uses, including commercial and industrial uses, to provide an adequate storage area for the collection and removal of recyclable materials. Consistent with AB 341 and AB 1327, Section 6.30.040 of the MMC regulates the placement, maintenance, and enclosure of collection bins for recyclable materials and Section 6.30.080 of the MMC requires implementation of a recycling program and a minimum diversion rate of 50 percent for all commercial premises. • Organic Waste: AB 1826 requires jurisdictions to implement an organic waste109 recycling program for businesses, including outreach, education, and monitoring of affected businesses. As of January 1, 2017, businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week also were required to arrange for organic waste recycling services. In September 2020, CalRecycle reduced this threshold to 2 cubic yards of solid waste (i.e., total of trash, recycling, and organics) per week generated by covered businesses.110 Section 6.30.040 of the MMC regulates the placement, maintenance, and enclosure of collection bins for recyclable materials and, consistent with AB 1826, Section 6.30.090 of the MMC regulates the separation, containment, collection, and processing/disposal of organic waste within the City. Trash, recycling, and organic waste generated in the City are collected, hauled, and disposed of by Waste Management, Inc. (WM). According to the most recent data available from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), waste from the City that is collected by WM is ultimately disposed of primarily at El Sobrante Landfill, Badlands Sanitary Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill.111 Table 3.19-1, Solid Waste Infrastructure Capacities, provides capacity and operational information for the solid waste infrastructure that would serve the Project’s solid waste. Table 3.19-1, Solid Waste Infrastructure Capacities Landfill Max Daily Permitted (tpd) Average Daily Tonnage (tpd) 1 Available Daily Disposal (tpd) Closure Date El Sobrante Landfill 16,054 10,441 5,613 1/1/2051 Badlands Sanitary Landfill 5,000 2,964 2,036 1/1/2059 Lamb Canyon Landfill 5,000 1,947 3,053 4/1/2032 109 AB 1826 defines “organic waste” as food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, non-hazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. 110 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling, www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/organics/. Accessed October 2025. 111 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Jurisdictional Disposal By Facility with Reported Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and Alternative Intermediate Cover (AIC), Disposal During 2019 for Menifee, 2019.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 167 Table 3.19-1, Solid Waste Infrastructure Capacities
Landfill Max Daily Permitted (tpd) Average Daily Tonnage (tpd) 1 Available Daily Disposal (tpd) Closure Date tpd = tons per day 1 Calculated by dividing total annual tonnage by 312 days (reflecting a six days per week operation). Total annual tonnage source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Solid Waste Landfilling Data, 2024 Landfill Summary Tonnage Report, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/. Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Solid Waste Information System, SWIS Facility/Site Search, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Construction The Project would not require demolition; however, construction would generate solid waste from material packaging, material discard, and general worker activities. The construction of the Project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 70 tons of solid waste over the entire construction period.112 Pursuant to City policies, the Project would be required to submit a waste reduction and recycling plan as part of plan check submittal requirements prior to the issuance of a construction permit. In addition, accordance with the requirements of MMC Section 6.40.050, which mandates consistency with CALGreen, it is assumed that 50 percent of the Project’s construction waste would be diverted from disposal. Furthermore, the Project would utilize the City’s approved hauler or obtain a permit as a self-hauler, both of which are required to comply with applicable solid waste regulations, including diversion minimums, under MMC Chapter 6.30. Based on the capacities of solid waste infrastructure that would serve the Project (El Sobrante Landfill, Badlands Landfill, and Lamb Canyon Landfill), and mandatory adherence to diversion and removal/disposal requirements, construction of the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Operation WM has reviewed the Project and issued a “will serve” letter confirming the availability of service for the Project, including recycling and organic waste collection.113 Based on solid waste generation rates calculated by CalEEMod (see Appendix B to this IS/MND), it is estimated that the Project would generate approximately 43.1 tons of solid waste per year. As with all solid waste generating uses within the City, the Project would be subject to the diversion requirements of AB 939, as amended by AB 341. Accordingly, it is assumed that the Project’s 43.1 tons of annual solid 112 A construction waste generation rate of 4.02 pounds per square foot was used. 38,560 square feet of construction multiplied by 4.02 pounds is 155,011 pounds (70 tons). Generation rate source: U.S. EPA, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, Table A-2, June 1998. 113 Waste Management of the Inland Empire, Lily V. Quiroa, Public Sector Services Regional Manager, Waste Management Service Provider, September 24, 2024.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 168 waste would consist of 32.3 tons of recyclable materials and 10.8 tons of refuse for landfill disposal annually, or 0.09 tons of recyclable materials and 0.03 tons of refuse daily. CalRecycle estimates that approximately 39.1 percent of the recyclable materials generated within City by businesses consists of organic waste.114 Therefore, approximately 0.04 tons of the Project’s 0.09 tons of recyclable materials generated daily would be organic waste. As shown in Table 3.19-2, Project Percentage of Solid Waste Infrastructure Capacities, the Project’s 10.8-ton of daily landfill waste would represent a negligible portion of the available transfer/recovery and disposal capacities of the solid waste infrastructure that would serve the Project. Furthermore, WM operates several materials transfer and processing facilities, including the Moreno Valley Solid Waste Recycling and Transfer Facility, located approximately 13 miles northwest of the Site, and has access to other disposal facilities throughout Riverside County where Project-generated waste, including recyclable and organic waste, can be transferred, processed, or disposed of as needed. Table 3.19-2, Project Percentage of Solid Waste Infrastructure Capacities Landfill Available Daily Disposal (tpd) Project Percentage of Available El Sobrante Landfill 5,613 0.19 Badlands Sanitary Landfill 2,036 0.53 Lamb Canyon Landfill 3,053 0.35 tpd = tons per day Source: Letter from Katherine Avila, Urban/Regional Planner I, Riverside County Department of Waste Resources to Monique Alaniz-Flejter, Community Development Director, City of Hemet Planning Department, January 18, 2024. The Project would generate solid waste of a type and amount consistent with typical commercial land uses and those currently existing within the surrounding area. In addition, the Project would utilize the City’s approved hauler or a hauler otherwise meeting the requirements of MMC Chapter 6.30, which require haulers to comply with applicable solid waste regulations, including minimum diversion rates. Because the Project would be required to utilize a waste collection service permitted by the City that would transport waste to disposal facilities permitted to accept the types and amounts of waste anticipated from the Project, the solid waste generated by the Project, including recycling and organic green waste, would be picked up and disposed of in accordance with MMC Section 6.30.100, which was enacted pursuant to the solid waste diversion goals of AB 939 (as amended by AB 341), the recycling requirements of AB 341 and AB 1327, and the organic waste diversion requirements of AB 1826. In addition, WM has reviewed the Project plans and determined that the Project includes adequate space allocation to accommodate the required bins for waste stream separation, consistent with the requirements of MMC Section 6.30.040. The Project Site 114 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Business Group Waste Stream by Material Type, Riverside County, City of Menifee, All Business Types, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/MaterialTypeStreams?bg=104.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 169 is located in an urban area with established solid waste collection routes (i.e., WM under contract to the City Public Works Department). Transport of the Project’s solid waste would occur along one of WM’ established pick-up and disposal routes. Thus, the Project would not result in the need for additional solid waste collection routes. Based on the above, the Project’s operational waste generation would not exceed the permitted capacity of landfills serving the City’s waste hauler, would implement the waste separation and storage requirements required by MMC Section 6.30.040, and would utilize waste collection services and landfills permitted to collect, transport, and dispose of the Project’s anticipated waste stream. Therefore, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste collection and disposal providers must follow all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to the collection and disposal of solid waste. Approved collection service providers and permitted disposal facilities are mandated to comply with state diversion requirements. During construction, the Project’s utilization of an approved collection service provider (or a permitted self-hauler) and permitted disposal facilities would be ensured through the mandatory waste reduction and recycling plan that would outline the anticipated amount of C&D waste, the estimated amount that would be diverted from landfill, and identify the City-permitted C&D waste hauler transporting construction-related waste. The Project would also be required to comply with MMC Section 6.40.050, which was enacted pursuant to the C&D waste diversions goals of CALGreen standards and SB 1374 requirements. During operation, the Project would implement the waste separation and storage requirements required by MMC Section 6.30.040, Section 6.30.080, and Section 6.30.090. Specifically, the Project would be required to arrange for recycling services, including organics recycling, and provide separate containers for the collection of refuse for landfill disposal, recyclables, and organic waste. MMC Section 6.30.040, Section 6.30.080, and Section 6.30.090 were enacted pursuant to the solid waste diversion goals of AB 939 (as amended by AB 341), the recycling requirements of AB 341 and AB 1327, and the organic waste diversion requirements of AB 1826. Based on the above, the Project would comply with MMC Section 6.40.050 requirements during construction and MMC Section 6.30.040, Section 6.30.080, and Section 6.30.090 during operation. These local codes were enacted to assist the City in meeting the solid waste management and diversion requirements of SB 1374, AB 939, AB 341, AB 1327, and AB 1826.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 170 Therefore, the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative water, wastewater, storm drain, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure impacts are considered on a system-wide basis and are associated with the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure from local responsible agencies. Water lines, trunk sewers, stormwater facilities, or other public utilities within the Project area could require upgrades or expansions as cumulative development occurs. Agencies would continue to expand delivery capacity as needed to meet demand increases within its service area at the lowest cost and risk consistent with their environmental priorities and reliability standards. Development projects would also be anticipated to incorporate site-specific infrastructure improvements, as necessary. As with the Project, each of the related projects would be reviewed by the City to identify necessary facilities and service connections to meet the needs of their respective projects. Project applicants would be required to provide for the needs of their individual projects, thereby contributing to the utility infrastructure in the Project area. Infrastructure improvement is a typical and expected part of the provision of utilities and would not be expected to result in significant impacts to the environment. Therefore, cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative impacts. In addition, because the Project would not result in significant impacts associated with new or expanded facilities within the Project area, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Cumulative water supply impacts are considered on a purveyor service area basis and are associated with the adequacy of the primary sources of water. As described above, EMWD’s UWMPs show that with anticipated growth projections, there would be sufficient water supply through 2045. Furthermore, all development is required to meet water conservation goals established by state and local regulations. As a result, cumulative development would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to water supply. Furthermore, because development of the Project would result in less than significant impacts, the implementation of the Project would result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts to water supply. The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to wastewater facilities includes cumulative projects located within the service area of the Perris Valley RWRF, which has a current capacity to treat 22 million gallons of wastewater per day and currently treats an average of 15.5 million gallons. The project and cumulative projects would increase cumulative demand for wastewater treatment at Perris Valley RWRF. Monitoring of wastewater flows and identification of the needs for future treatment capacity for all of the development in the entire service area is an on-going activity of the City. As with the Project, related projects would be required to evaluate their impacts on treatment capacity at Perris Valley RWRF. In addition, future development of new treatment plans, upgrades and improvements to existing capacity, development of new technologies will ultimately determine future available capacity. The Project’s Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 171 wastewater would represent a nominal increase of 0.05 percent over current wastewater received and would account for 0.1 percent of the remaining daily capacity at the Perris Valley RWRF. Therefore, Project impacts on the wastewater treatment systems would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The estimated combined available daily intake capacities for the landfills serving the City (El Sobrante, Badlands Sanitary, and Lamb Canyon Landfills) is 10,702 tons per day. It is anticipated that these three landfills will be available to accept solid waste until 2032, 2051, and 2059. The County would continue to project anticipated waste generation based on anticipated development according to growth consistent with local general plans and zoning, and plan for landfill space throughout their service area. Because the Project would be consistent with growth anticipated for the Site based on the underlying General Plan land use designation and zoning, and would represent less than one percent of the daily permitted refuse capacities of the landfills serving the City and the greater regional disposal capacity available to the waste hauler, the Project’s impact would be less than significant, and the contribution of the Project’s impact on solid waste infrastructure would be less than cumulatively considerable. As with the Project, cumulative development is expected to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste disposal, and impacts would be less than cumulatively significant. Because the Project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste disposal, the Project’s contribution to cumulative solid waste impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
N
Project Utility Plan
Source: Bickel Group Architecture, 2025
Figure 3.19-1
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 173
3.20 Wildfire Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 174 (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. As detailed in response to Checklist Question 3.9(g), the Project Site is not located within a state responsibility area or a very high fire severity zone and would implement fire protection and life safety features standardized in the California Building and Fire Codes, as enforced by the MMC. The Project Site is in an urbanized area located outside of hillside or wildland interface zones subject to additional fire prevention conditions and standards. Accordingly, the Project would have no potential to substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; exacerbate risks due to slope, prevailing winds, or installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure; or expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, slope instability, or drainage changes within a state responsibility area or VHFHSZ. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts related to wildfire could occur as new development or redevelopment occurs within the surrounding area. This includes the project, and other past, present, and future projects. Due to the urbanized nature of portions of the City, growth would consist of a mix of residential and non-residential development, consistent with past and present growth trends. The Project, combined with other projects in the region, would increase human activities and potential ignition sources in the Project area, which may increase wildfire risk. Individual projects would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes, which have been increasingly strengthened as a result of severe wildfires that have occurred in the last two decades. The fire and building codes include fire prevention and protection features that reduce the likelihood of a fire igniting in a specific project site and spreading to off-site vegetated areas. These codes also protect projects from wildfires that may occur in the area through implementation of brush management and fuel management zones, ensuring adequate water supply, preparation of fire protection plans, and other measures, and are being regularly updated. The Project would be constructed in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code, and Project landscaping would avoid the use of highly flammable plant species. Further, the Project Site is within a developed portion of the City and is not adjacent to undeveloped open space that poses a significant wildfire risk. The Project and all other future development projects in the service area would be subject to discretionary review by Menifee Fire Department and would be required to comply with the Riverside County Fire Code Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 175 and other relevant code requirements and regulations related to fire safety, building construction, access, fire flow, and fuel modification. By complying with these requirements, each project would avoid creating obstacles to the routine extension of fire protection and emergency services in the vicinity. Further, as discussed in Section 3.15, the Project would not have significant impacts on service demands. Therefore, the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to wildfire, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 176
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) requires a finding of significance if a project “has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment.” In practice, this is the same standard as a significant effect on the environment, which is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 as “a substantial or Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 177 potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” As indicated by the analysis in Checklist Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the Project would require mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls and nesting birds. Following implementation of BIO-1 and BIO-2, impacts would be less than significant. As such, the Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As discussed in Checklist Sections 3.5, Cultural Resources, and 3.7, Geology and Soils, the Project would require mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 and GEO-1 to reduce potential impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources that could be inadvertently discovered during construction. Following implementation of CUL-1, CUL-2, and GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant. As such, the Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As detailed throughout the remainder of the analysis presented in Section 3, Initial Study Checklist, all additional impacts would be less than significant or reduced to less-than-significant levels through mitigation. Therefore, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 (see Checklist Section 3.4), CUL-1 and CUL-2 (see Checklist Section 3.5), GEO-1 (see Checklist Section 3.7), and TRA-1 and TRA-2 (see Checklist Section 3.17). Mitigation Measures None required. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described throughout this IS/MND, the proposed Project would potentially result in significant impacts related to the emission of criteria pollutants during construction (see Checklist Section 3.3); to burrowing owls and nesting birds (see Checklist Section 3.4); to previously unidentified archeological resources and human remains (see Checklist Section 3.5); to paleontological resources (see Checklist Section 3.7), and to the roadway system and circulation (see Checklist Section 3.17). However, project-level mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. In addition, all reasonably foreseeable future development in the City would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations that have been described throughout Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 178 this document for the Project. Furthermore, all development projects are guided by the policies identified in the City’s General Plan and development regulations established in the MMC. Therefore, compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations would ensure that environmental effects associated with the proposed Project would not combine with effects from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the City to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts. For these reasons, as detailed in the cumulative analyses presented for each environmental issue area of Section 3, Initial Study Checklist, cumulative impacts of the Project would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 (see Checklist Section 3.4), CUL-1 and CUL-2 (see Checklist Section 3.5), GEO-1 (see Checklist Section 3.7), and TRA-1 and TRA-2 (see Checklist Section 3.17). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4), a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if people would be significantly affected. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals. While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of the designated CEQA environmental issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include air quality, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. These changes are addressed in Checklist Sections 3.3, Air Quality; 3.7, Geology and Soils (for non-paleontological resources checklist questions); 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality; 3.13, Noise; 3.14, Population and Housing; 3.15, Public Services; 3.17, Transportation; 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems; and 3.20, Wildfire of this IS/MND. As detailed in these sections, all potential impacts of the Project have been identified and were determined to be less than significant or were reduced to less than significant levels following mitigation. As such, the Project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Initial Study Checklist
Menifee Boardwalk Project City of Menifee Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2026 179 Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 (see Checklist Section 3.4), CUL-1 and CUL-2 (see Checklist Section 3.5), GEO-1 (see Checklist Section 3.7), and TRA-1 and TRA-2 (see Checklist Section 3.17).